Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARTIN DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1600865 · 1 · SOUTH ABEYTA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:10 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 1886-04-01 — 108th most senior of the 1044 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: OAKFIELD DITCH (1884-07-15). Immediately behind: MARIA STEVENS RESERVOIR (1887-08-08).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13240.0 | 1886-04-01 | 1889-06-12 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 66 |
| 20454.0 | 1906-01-01 | 1921-10-03 | 4.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 351 |
| 22430.0 | 1911-05-31 | 1921-10-03 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 427 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1414, 06/12/1889.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1414 | 2 | 1921-10-03 | S |
06/12/1889 | 1 | 1889-06-12 | 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 71 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1965 | 991 | 14th lowest of 15 · 1396% of median | 182 | 3.0 |
| 1966 | 1,297 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1827% of median | 221 | 3.0 |
| 1972 | 673 | 13th lowest of 15 · 948% of median | 214 | 3.3 |
| 1973 | 95 | 9th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 42 | 1.2 |
| 1984 | 182 | 11th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 48 | 2.0 |
| 1985 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1986 | 66 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 34 | 1.2 |
| 1987 | 71 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 37 | 1.5 |
| 1988 | 126 | 10th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 55 | 1.2 |
| 1992 | 52 | 6th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 13 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 28 | 5th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 18 | 1.0 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 1999 | 588 | 12th lowest of 15 · 828% of median | 106 | 4.8 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 29 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-7 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.004).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1870 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 8% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2015 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.