Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WALTER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3000667 · 1 · ANIMAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1888-06-01 — 334th 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: RED CLIFF DITCH (1887-09-08). Immediately behind: FLORIDA CANAL (1888-09-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14032.0 | 1888-06-01 | 1923-11-08 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-20 |
| 54786.50557 | 1988-06-02 | 2000-12-31 | 0.033 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 56978.55149 | 2000-12-28 | 2006-12-31 | 0.325 | 0.325 | C | IRRRECFISSTK | |
| 58272.0 | 2009-07-17 | 2009-12-31 | 0.033 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
09CW0038, 21CW3042, 14CW3026, 06CW0119, 00CW0033, CA1751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0038 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
21CW3042 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
14CW3026 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
06CW0119 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
00CW0033 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | 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 451 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 451 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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 | 249 | 5th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 244 | 1.1 |
| 2012 | 261 | 6th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 242 | 1.3 |
| 2013 | 163 | 4th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 175 | 0.9 |
| 2014 | 125 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 171 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 121 | 1st lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 154 | 0.7 |
| 2016 | 127 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 285 | 0.3 |
| 2017 | 746 | 15th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 293 | 2.2 |
| 2018 | 551 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 221 | 2.1 |
| 2019 | 305 | 7th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 240 | 1.3 |
| 2020 | 620 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 208 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 524 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 208 | 1.9 |
| 2022 | 563 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 205 | 1.9 |
| 2023 | 527 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 197 | 1.9 |
| 2024 | 467 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 203 | 2.3 |
| 2025 | 451 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 186 | 1.9 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11833 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% 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.