Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPANISH PEAKS RANCH DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1800544 · 1 · NORTH FORK APISHAPA RIVE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 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 1957-11-30 — 183rd most senior of the 367 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: MERRITT SPRING NO 7 (1952-11-28). Immediately behind: SPANISH PEAKS POND NO 13 (1957-11-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44194.39415 | 1957-11-30 | 1971-12-31 | 3.451 | 0.0 | C | RECFIS |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W0215-78, W0215, 87CW0043, 83CW0033, 21CW3078.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0215-78 | 2 | 1971-12-31 | S |
W0215 | 2 | 1971-12-31 | S |
87CW0043 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | S |
83CW0033 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | S |
21CW3078 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | 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 16 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2011, 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1986 | 45 | 15th lowest of 15 · 281% of median | 42 | 1.0 |
| 1988 | 40 | 13th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 32 | 1.5 |
| 1989 | 41 | 14th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 42 | 0.5 |
| 1990 | 21 | 9th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 28 | 0.5 |
| 1992 | 11 | 7th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 13 | 0.5 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 15 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 19 | 0.0 |
| 2004 | 25 | 10th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 94 | 0.7 |
| 2005 | 3 | 6th lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 45 | 0.1 |
| 2006 | 28 | 11th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 53 | 0.8 |
| 2007 | 16 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 0.2 |
| 2008 | 2 | 5th lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 37 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 35 | 12th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 88 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 26 | 0.0 |
| 2011 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 24 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-1 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.036).
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 | 1377 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2011 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.