Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FORD DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1301133 · 1 · CRYSTAL FALLS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:20 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 1881-05-01 — 345th 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: OMMANNEY DITCH NO 2 (1881-05-01). Immediately behind: MORITZ BRANDENBURG NO 6 (1881-05-02).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11444.0 | 1881-05-01 | 1896-03-12 | 1.29 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 289 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/12/1896 | 1 | 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 7 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 96 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1998, came in at 42 AF — 44% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 7 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1916 | 161 | 6th lowest of 7 · 168% of median | 82 | 1.0 |
| 1921 | 103 | 5th lowest of 7 · 107% of median | 53 | 1.0 |
| 1924 | 169 | 7th lowest of 7 · 176% of median | 86 | 1.0 |
| 1926 | 96 | 4th lowest of 7 · 100% of median | 43 | 1.3 |
| 1930 | 43 | 3rd lowest of 7 · 45% of median | 18 | 1.3 |
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 7 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 1998 | 42 | 2nd lowest of 7 · 44% of median | 22 | 1.0 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 306 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 2% of the irrigation seasons in 1916-1998 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.