Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SALAS NORTH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1900559 · 1 · PURGATOIRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:47 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 1864-04-10 — 29th most senior of the 735 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: ELUTARIO GARCIA DITCH (1864-03-31). Immediately behind: JUAN VIGIL DITCH (1864-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5214.0 | 1864-04-10 | 1903-08-10 | 2.54 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 15 |
| 5876.0 | 1866-02-01 | 1903-08-10 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 22 |
| 5995.0 | 1866-05-31 | 1903-08-10 | 2.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
08/30/1905, 08/10/1903, 06/30/1917, 03/21/1911.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
08/30/1905 | 1 | 1903-08-10 | O |
08/10/1903 | 2 | 1903-08-10 | O |
06/30/1917 | 1 | 1903-08-10 | O |
03/21/1911 | 2 | 1903-08-10 | 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 577 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 871 AF — 151% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 626 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 123 | 6.4 |
| 2011 | 755 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 163 | 8.6 |
| 2012 | 672 | 13th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 224 | 7.5 |
| 2013 | 572 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 166 | 7.9 |
| 2014 | 451 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 147 | 7.8 |
| 2015 | 577 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 104 | 5.7 |
| 2016 | 569 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 81 | 9.7 |
| 2017 | 602 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 105 | 8.9 |
| 2018 | 480 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 77 | 6.5 |
| 2019 | 597 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 79 | 5.4 |
| 2020 | 291 | 1st lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 79 | 3.4 |
| 2021 | 517 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 111 | 3.4 |
| 2022 | 467 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 111 | 3.3 |
| 2023 | 598 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 115 | 3.4 |
| 2024 | 871 | 15th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 118 | 6.7 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11705 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% of the irrigation seasons in 1929-2024 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.