Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FLORIDA FARMERS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3001011 · 1 · FLORIDA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 04:35 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 1883-12-05 — 318th 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: PRESCOTT NORTH SIDE D (1883-06-15). Immediately behind: STEWARD NO 3 (1884-03-15).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12392.0 | 1883-12-05 | 1923-11-08 | 12.08 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-17 |
| 13649.0 | 1887-05-15 | 1923-11-08 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-21 |
| 14016.0 | 1888-05-16 | 1923-11-08 | 8.58 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-22.5 |
| 14291.0 | 1889-02-15 | 1923-11-08 | 23.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-24 |
| 20890.0 | 1907-03-13 | 1923-11-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-68A |
| 22228.0 | 1910-11-10 | 1923-11-08 | 30.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-84 |
| 35219.0 | 1946-06-05 | 1966-03-21 | 110.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 66-52 |
| 61337.0 | 2017-12-07 | 2017-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUNIND |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
17CW3044, CA1751-B, W0306, CA1751.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3044 | 1 | 2017-12-31 | S |
CA1751-B | 2 | 1966-03-21 | O, S |
W0306 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
CA1751 | 6 | 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 30,451 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 28,418 AF — 93% of that, and 7th 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 | 36,947 | 13th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 136 | 190.3 |
| 2012 | 27,576 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 113 | 191.5 |
| 2013 | 17,367 | 1st lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 75 | 183.5 |
| 2014 | 34,010 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 150 | 191.1 |
| 2015 | 32,555 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 158 | 162.7 |
| 2016 | 31,998 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 145 | 178.1 |
| 2017 | 37,136 | 14th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 165 | 174.2 |
| 2018 | 18,613 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 111 | 182.5 |
| 2019 | 37,971 | 15th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 180 | 180.7 |
| 2020 | 26,304 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 184 | 170.5 |
| 2021 | 18,830 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 365 | 171.0 |
| 2022 | 25,394 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 365 | 180.0 |
| 2023 | 34,021 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 365 | 159.0 |
| 2024 | 30,451 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 159.1 |
| 2025 | 28,418 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 304 | 154.4 |
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 17008 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 82% of the irrigation seasons in 1928-2025 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.