Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
AMBOLD-WALLACE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3000504 · 1 · ANIMAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 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 1891-12-21 — 340th 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: WEGS PUMP (1891-05-15). Immediately behind: RUDY DITCH (1892-03-15).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15330.0 | 1891-12-21 | 1923-11-08 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-22 |
| 46020.1534 | 1891-12-31 | 1976-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 52458.0 | 1993-08-16 | 1993-12-31 | 0.03 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 56978.55149 | 2000-12-28 | 2006-12-31 | 0.69 | 1.01 | C | IRRRECFISSTKGEO |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
14CW3026, 06CW0119, 05CW0091, 93CW0055, 00CW0087, W1487, CA1751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
14CW3026 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
06CW0119 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
05CW0091 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
93CW0055 | 1 | 1993-12-31 | S |
00CW0087 | 1 | 1993-12-31 | S |
W1487 | 1 | 1976-12-31 | S |
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 4,396 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,369 AF — 77% of that, and 1st 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 | 3,491 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 207 | 12.2 |
| 2012 | 4,242 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 228 | 15.0 |
| 2013 | 4,438 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 198 | 14.2 |
| 2014 | 5,067 | 14th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 239 | 15.0 |
| 2015 | 3,977 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 190 | 14.1 |
| 2016 | 4,695 | 12th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 264 | 13.5 |
| 2017 | 4,534 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 282 | 14.1 |
| 2018 | 3,809 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 216 | 14.4 |
| 2019 | 4,399 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 240 | 11.5 |
| 2020 | 4,396 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 219 | 23.4 |
| 2021 | 5,494 | 15th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 268 | 14.4 |
| 2022 | 4,742 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 205 | 16.6 |
| 2023 | 4,232 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 218 | 13.5 |
| 2024 | 3,854 | 4th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 239 | 15.0 |
| 2025 | 3,369 | 1st lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 186 | 12.3 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 16942 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 79% 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.