Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MIDDLE DITCH (N GRAPE)
Structure dossier · WDID 1300644 · 1 · CRYSTAL FALLS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:39 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 1880-04-15 — 302nd 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: YANKEE DITCH (1880-04-15). Immediately behind: THOMAS BALMAN DITCH NO 5 (1880-04-15).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11063.0 | 1880-04-15 | 1896-03-12 | 0.35 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 237 |
| 11428.0 | 1881-04-15 | 1896-03-12 | 1.43 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 285 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/12/1896 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 20 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 19 AF — 95% of that, and 7th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (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 record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 33 | 10th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 23 | 0.8 |
| 2000 | 8 | 4th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 15 | 0.3 |
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 113 | 14th lowest of 15 · 565% of median | 32 | 1.8 |
| 2007 | 22 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 33 | 0.3 |
| 2008 | 61 | 13th lowest of 15 · 305% of median | 46 | 0.7 |
| 2009 | 60 | 12th lowest of 15 · 300% of median | 70 | 0.4 |
| 2010 | 20 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 29 | 0.4 |
| 2014 | 153 | 15th lowest of 15 · 765% of median | 79 | 1.0 |
| 2015 | 9 | 5th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 14 | 0.5 |
| 2019 | 35 | 11th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 17 | 1.1 |
| 2021 | 10 | 6th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 14 | 0.4 |
| 2023 | 19 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 29 | 0.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
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
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2040 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 9% of the irrigation seasons in 1916-2023 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.