Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WAGNER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100828 · 1 · IGNACIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:23 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 1942-04-30 — 699th most senior of the 1037 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: HICKS PUMP (1985-07-19). Immediately behind: CLIFTON DITCH (1986-03-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49673.33722 | 1942-04-30 | 1986-12-31 | 1.07 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 57708.53111 | 1995-05-31 | 2008-12-31 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
08CW0021, 86CW0051.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
08CW0021 | 1 | 2008-12-31 | S |
86CW0051 | 1 | 1986-12-31 | S |
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 172 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 66 AF — 38% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 16 | 1st lowest of 15 · 9% of median | 71 | 0.3 |
| 2004 | 69 | 5th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 142 | 0.6 |
| 2005 | 70 | 6th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 127 | 0.8 |
| 2006 | 40 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 134 | 0.4 |
| 2007 | 23 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 113 | 0.2 |
| 2008 | 279 | 12th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 154 | 1.4 |
| 2009 | 320 | 14th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 152 | 1.8 |
| 2010 | 163 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 128 | 1.2 |
| 2011 | 172 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 152 | 1.2 |
| 2012 | 276 | 11th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 149 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 302 | 13th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 146 | 2.2 |
| 2014 | 199 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 158 | 1.1 |
| 2015 | 216 | 10th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 165 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 410 | 15th lowest of 15 · 238% of median | 157 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 66 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 87 | 0.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+17 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 3227 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 59% of the irrigation seasons in 1992-2017 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.