Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

SPRING RUN DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 2900722 · 1 · RIO BLANCO · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:02 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 1932-06-01 — 206th 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: MARTINEZ AND MARTINEZ DITCH AP (1931-05-01). Immediately behind: FAWN GULCH RES FEEDER D (1932-10-15).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
30102.01932-06-011962-04-19 2.00.0 CIRRFISDOM #298

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 67 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 23 AF — 34% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2006 73 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median 127 0.5
2007 46 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median 60 0.6
2008 145 12th lowest of 15 · 216% of median 70 2.0
2009 289 15th lowest of 15 · 431% of median 119 2.6
2010 222 14th lowest of 15 · 331% of median 136 1.5
2011 84 11th lowest of 15 · 125% of median 79 1.2
2012 64 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median 67 1.1
2013 69 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median 64 0.8
2014 27 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median 56 0.3
2015 4 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median 20 0.3
2016 67 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 76 0.5
2017 50 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median 38 1.0
2018 58 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median 54 1.0
2019 199 13th lowest of 15 · 297% of median 40 3.0
2020 23 2nd lowest of 15 · 34% of median 44 0.5

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 3749 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2020 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.