Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JOE MAEZ DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900632 · 1 · RIO BLANCO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:13 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1895-05-14 — 155th most senior of the 853 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: WHITE CREEK NO 2 DITCH (1889-07-15). Immediately behind: SAM TEESON DITCH (1897-05-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22962.1657 | 1895-05-14 | 1928-06-05 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #187 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0308-D, 01CW0107, CA0308.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
01CW0107 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1928-06-05 | 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 117 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 219 AF — 187% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 22 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 17 | 0.0 |
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 13 | 0.0 |
| 2007 | 245 | 12th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 30 | 8.0 |
| 2008 | 109 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 89 | 1.8 |
| 2009 | 117 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 90 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 105 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 72 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 44 | 5th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 41 | 1.1 |
| 2012 | 153 | 9th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 109 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 20 | 4th lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 105 | 0.1 |
| 2014 | 662 | 15th lowest of 15 · 566% of median | 143 | 3.0 |
| 2015 | 237 | 11th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 93 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 519 | 13th lowest of 15 · 444% of median | 198 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 602 | 14th lowest of 15 · 514% of median | 148 | 2.5 |
| 2018 | 219 | 10th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 105 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+24 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.011).
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 | 2264 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 19% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2018 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.