Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RANDALL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2300987 · DITCH · MICHIGAN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (0576005) — 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.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1863-12-30).
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 1878-05-01 — 546th most senior of the 21881 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: 2300691 (1878-04-20). Immediately behind: 2301104 (1878-05-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10348.0 | 1878-05-01 | 1889-10-18 | 1724.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUN | |
| 10348.0 | 1878-05-01 | 1889-10-18 | 11.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | |
| 11414.0 | 1881-04-01 | 1889-10-18 | 2134.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUN | |
| 11414.0 | 1881-04-01 | 1889-10-18 | 11.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | |
| 53325.26053 | 1921-05-01 | 1996-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | |
| 53325.27514 | 1925-05-01 | 1996-12-31 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
96CW0235, CA0341, 05CW0111.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0235 | 2 | 1996-12-31 | S |
CA0341 | 2 | 1889-10-18 | O |
05CW0111 | 4 | 1889-10-18 | 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 1,231 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 28 AF — 2% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 1,231 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 50 | 23.0 |
| 1991 | 1,339 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 54 | 23.5 |
| 1992 | 1,547 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 76 | 22.0 |
| 1993 | 2,106 | 15th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 77 | 23.0 |
| 1994 | 1,067 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 32 | 20.0 |
| 1995 | 1,870 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 42 | 23.0 |
| 1996 | 1,611 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 67 | 16.0 |
| 1997 | 2,005 | 14th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 58 | 23.5 |
| 1998 | 1,049 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 60 | 18.0 |
| 1999 | 916 | 4th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 83 | 8.0 |
| 2000 | 426 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 52 | 5.0 |
| 2001 | 1,209 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 58 | 13.0 |
| 2002 | 52 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 11 | 4.0 |
| 2003 | 1,439 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 81 | 11.8 |
| 2023 | 28 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 15 | 1.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-53 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3257 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2023 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.