Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
AMBOLD DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 3000503 · 1 · ANIMAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:20 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 1893-03-03 — 343rd 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: BEAR CREEK DITCH (1892-05-01). Immediately behind: BANKS-TYNER DITCH (1893-03-08).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15768.0 | 1893-03-03 | 1923-11-08 | 2.66 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | A-24 |
| 17294.0 | 1897-05-07 | 1923-11-08 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-28 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
06CW0083, 06CW0081, 05CW0091, W1084, CA1751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06CW0083 | 2 | 2006-12-31 | S |
06CW0081 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
05CW0091 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
W1084 | 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 583 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 337 AF — 58% of that, and 3rd 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 | 583 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 261 | 1.9 |
| 2012 | 1,024 | 13th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 267 | 3.3 |
| 2013 | 463 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 281 | 1.9 |
| 2014 | 407 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 246 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 516 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 180 | 2.2 |
| 2016 | 1,037 | 14th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 221 | 4.2 |
| 2017 | 1,056 | 15th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 187 | 5.0 |
| 2018 | 728 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 186 | 4.4 |
| 2019 | 647 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 175 | 5.3 |
| 2020 | 954 | 12th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 192 | 4.0 |
| 2021 | 794 | 11th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 232 | 4.1 |
| 2022 | 348 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 199 | 1.8 |
| 2023 | 80 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 47 | 2.6 |
| 2024 | 159 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 54 | 5.4 |
| 2025 | 337 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 182 | 1.2 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9819 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 46% 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.