Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TWIN FORKS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1500608 · 1 · HUCKLEBERRY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:07 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 1893-06-27 — 112th most senior of the 704 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: SYLVANDELL DITCH (1893-06-27). Immediately behind: GRAVES DITCH HDGT NO 2 (1893-06-27).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15884.0 | 1893-06-27 | 1929-07-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 210 |
| 54421.53904 | 1997-08-01 | 1999-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISSTKWLD |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
99CW0181, CA2756-29, 79CW0076.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0181 | 1 | 1999-12-31 | S |
CA2756-29 | 1 | 1929-07-05 | S |
79CW0076 | 2 | 1929-07-05 | S |
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 41 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 138 AF — 337% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 34 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 158 | 0.5 |
| 2004 | 61 | 10th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 223 | 0.8 |
| 2005 | 100 | 13th lowest of 15 · 244% of median | 220 | 0.9 |
| 2006 | 61 | 10th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 269 | 0.7 |
| 2007 | 32 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 244 | 0.6 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 4 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 122 | 0.1 |
| 2013 | 7 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 34 | 0.3 |
| 2014 | 76 | 12th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 224 | 0.3 |
| 2015 | 41 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 174 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 18 | 4th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 102 | 0.2 |
| 2017 | 59 | 9th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 188 | 1.6 |
| 2019 | 27 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 98 | 0.2 |
| 2022 | 289 | 15th lowest of 15 · 705% of median | 138 | 4.0 |
| 2025 | 138 | 14th lowest of 15 · 337% of median | 61 | 2.0 |
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 (8/10 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 | 10375 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 51% of the irrigation seasons in 1930-2025 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.