Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RED CLIFF DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3000616 · 1 · ANIMAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:44 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 1887-09-08 — 333rd 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: SHAFFER DITCH (1886-10-01). Immediately behind: WALTER DITCH (1888-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13765.0 | 1887-09-08 | 1923-11-08 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-19 |
| 16923.0 | 1896-05-01 | 1923-11-08 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-26 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1751 | 2 | 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 36 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1975, came in at 56 AF — 156% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1953 | 24 | 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 157 | 0.1 |
| 1954 | 33 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 167 | 0.1 |
| 1955 | 44 | 9th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 221 | 0.1 |
| 1956 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 49 | 0.1 |
| 1957 | 69 | 13th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 156 | 0.5 |
| 1958 | 84 | 14th lowest of 15 · 233% of median | 196 | 0.5 |
| 1959 | 23 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 121 | 0.1 |
| 1960 | 62 | 12th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 132 | 0.5 |
| 1961 | 36 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 109 | 0.5 |
| 1962 | 57 | 11th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 115 | 1.0 |
| 1963 | 17 | 4th lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 99 | 0.1 |
| 1964 | 10 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 53 | 0.1 |
| 1968 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1969 | 134 | 15th lowest of 15 · 372% of median | 120 | 1.0 |
| 1975 | 56 | 10th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 151 | 0.5 |
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 | 4879 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 46% of the irrigation seasons in 1925-1975 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.