Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WM CONRADTS DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1300685 · 1 · MACEY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:19 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 1869-07-01 — 2nd 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: VORIS SWIFT CREEK NO 1 (1869-05-20). Immediately behind: H H TOMPKINS DITCH NO 1 (1869-07-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7122.0 | 1869-07-01 | 1896-03-12 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 3A |
| 7184.0 | 1869-09-01 | 1896-03-12 | 0.89 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 4A |
| 8553.0 | 1873-06-01 | 1896-03-12 | 0.21 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 61A |
| 9693.0 | 1876-07-15 | 1896-03-12 | 0.31 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 177 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
09CW0150, 03/12/1896, 02CW0043.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0150 | 4 | 1896-03-12 | O |
03/12/1896 | 4 | 1896-03-12 | O |
02CW0043 | 4 | 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 156 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 285 AF — 183% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 153 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 66 | 1.6 |
| 2010 | 156 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 65 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 170 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 80 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 244 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 184 | 1.1 |
| 2013 | 230 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 127 | 2.4 |
| 2014 | 156 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 127 | 1.7 |
| 2015 | 126 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 128 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 114 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 75 | 1.3 |
| 2017 | 131 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 100 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 197 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 161 | 1.3 |
| 2020 | 113 | 1st lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 81 | 1.1 |
| 2021 | 133 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 163 | 1.5 |
| 2022 | 160 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 168 | 1.3 |
| 2023 | 129 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 132 | 1.2 |
| 2024 | 285 | 15th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 179 | 1.2 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6745 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% 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.