Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ADAMS NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800500 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:51 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 1880-05-31 — 58th most senior of the 1505 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: KENNEDY DITCH NO 5 (1880-05-01). Immediately behind: SMITH FORD NO 2 DITCH (1880-05-31).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16192.11109 | 1880-05-31 | 1904-04-29 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 48 |
| 17319.0 | 1897-06-01 | 1904-04-29 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 121 |
| 28311.11109 | 1880-05-31 | 1943-04-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 216 |
| 28311.17319 | 1897-06-01 | 1943-04-19 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 272 |
| 28311.19842 | 1904-04-29 | 1943-04-19 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 287 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2079, CA1266.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2079 | 3 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1266 | 2 | 1904-04-29 | 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 5,556 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,778 AF — 104% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,630 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 88 | 28.0 |
| 2012 | 277 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 13 | 14.1 |
| 2013 | 1,147 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 78 | 9.2 |
| 2014 | 5,933 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 83 | 57.7 |
| 2015 | 8,307 | 14th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 99 | 109.0 |
| 2016 | 9,571 | 15th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 133 | 109.0 |
| 2017 | 4,157 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 80 | 57.1 |
| 2018 | 4,283 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 133 | 28.9 |
| 2019 | 5,522 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 91 | 40.0 |
| 2020 | 7,968 | 12th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 124 | 50.2 |
| 2021 | 5,556 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 117 | 45.8 |
| 2022 | 8,051 | 13th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 125 | 49.1 |
| 2023 | 3,687 | 4th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 67 | 49.1 |
| 2024 | 6,237 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 97 | 79.6 |
| 2025 | 5,778 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 108 | 60.6 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5080 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.