Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FRANK & ELZE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1300782 · 1 · DRY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:30 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 1884-06-05 — 407th 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: JOHN ERPS DITCH NO 5 (1884-06-05). Immediately behind: JOHN ERPS DITCH NO 6 (1884-06-06).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12575.0 | 1884-06-05 | 1896-03-12 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 376 |
| 12950.0 | 1885-06-15 | 1896-03-12 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 393 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/12/1896 | 3 | 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 29 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 91 AF — 314% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1995 | 104 | 14th lowest of 15 · 359% of median | 37 | 1.5 |
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1999 | 32 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 17 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 8 | 4th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 10 | 0.5 |
| 2001 | 51 | 11th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 39 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 9 | 5th lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 9 | 1.4 |
| 2004 | 23 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 39 | 0.3 |
| 2005 | 47 | 10th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 18 | 1.4 |
| 2007 | 204 | 15th lowest of 15 · 703% of median | 79 | 2.2 |
| 2008 | 28 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 46 | 0.3 |
| 2009 | 29 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 28 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 67 | 12th lowest of 15 · 231% of median | 45 | 1.1 |
| 2015 | 91 | 13th lowest of 15 · 314% of median | 46 | 2.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+3 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.025).
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 | 979 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 6% of the irrigation seasons in 1940-2015 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.