Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
AMBOLD DITCH (JECKEL)
Structure dossier · WDID 3000502 · 1 · ANIMAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:03 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 1876-08-28 — 119th most senior of the 2277 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: ELKHORN DITCH (1876-05-30). Immediately behind: SULLIVAN-WALLACE DITCH (1876-08-28).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9737.0 | 1876-08-28 | 1923-11-08 | 2.8469 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | A-5 |
| 17293.0 | 1897-05-06 | 1923-11-08 | 1.333 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-27 |
| 56978.16934 | 1896-05-12 | 2006-12-31 | 0.11 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
9 court cases:
08CW0065, 06CW0082, 05CW0091, W0502, CA1751-B, W1675, W1227, W1083, CA1751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
08CW0065 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
06CW0082 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
05CW0091 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
W0502 | 1 | 1966-03-21 | S |
CA1751-B | 1 | 1966-03-21 | S |
W1675 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
W1227 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
W1083 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
CA1751 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | 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 1,065 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 963 AF — 90% of that, and 5th 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 | 1,200 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 218 | 4.2 |
| 2012 | 1,333 | 14th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 274 | 4.5 |
| 2013 | 1,024 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 245 | 3.9 |
| 2014 | 1,065 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 246 | 3.8 |
| 2015 | 796 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 191 | 3.6 |
| 2016 | 376 | 1st lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 237 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 388 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 220 | 1.9 |
| 2018 | 623 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 192 | 3.9 |
| 2019 | 1,065 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 228 | 4.2 |
| 2020 | 1,669 | 15th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 209 | 7.5 |
| 2021 | 1,228 | 13th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 232 | 5.1 |
| 2022 | 1,043 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 205 | 3.5 |
| 2023 | 1,177 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 192 | 3.5 |
| 2024 | 1,211 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 215 | 5.8 |
| 2025 | 963 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 185 | 3.7 |
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 | 12713 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 59% of the irrigation seasons in 1925-2025 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.