Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

R B DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 1300632 · 1 · GRAPE CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:03 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.

Where it sits

Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.

Which of its rights are out of priority?

Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1876-05-05 — 218th most senior of the 1017 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..

Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: PIROTH DITCH NO 2 (1876-05-01). Immediately behind: HOULE DITCH NO 3 (1876-05-15).

Decreed rights (1)

Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
9622.01876-05-051896-03-12 0.660.0 CIRR 154

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 65 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 45 AF — 69% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.)Compared with its own recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2003 47 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median 38 0.7
2004 54 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median 42 0.7
2007 72 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median 57 0.7
2008 102 15th lowest of 15 · 157% of median 79 0.7
2009 75 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median 58 0.7
2010 42 1st lowest of 15 · 65% of median 34 0.7
2014 59 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median 48 0.7
2015 82 13th lowest of 15 · 126% of median 64 0.7
2016 62 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median 51 1.0
2017 65 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 53 0.7
2019 84 14th lowest of 15 · 129% of median 65 0.7
2021 77 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median 62 0.7
2022 79 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median 72 0.7
2023 59 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median 47 0.7
2024 45 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median 37 0.7

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.

The rubric, component by component
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 2892 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1916-2024 carry measured days
published-record stability stable no upstream revisions recorded against this structure

Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.