Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SNAKE RIVER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600805 · 1 · SNAKE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1899-10-11 — 175th most senior of the 1247 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: VIE DITCH (1899-08-31). Immediately behind: OWNERS WELL NO 1 (1899-10-11).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18181.0 | 1899-10-11 | 1910-03-02 | 0.575 | 0.0 | C | PWR | 37 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1277, 86CW0313, 84CW0279.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1277 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | O |
86CW0313 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | O |
84CW0279 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | 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 1,431 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1985, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1963 | 1,214 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 154 | 4.0 |
| 1964 | 3,679 | 14th lowest of 15 · 257% of median | 185 | 10.1 |
| 1965 | 5,295 | 15th lowest of 15 · 370% of median | 304 | 20.6 |
| 1966 | 1,431 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 5.0 |
| 1967 | 1,859 | 9th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 304 | 3.6 |
| 1968 | 1,173 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 305 | 2.2 |
| 1969 | 1,971 | 10th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 305 | 3.9 |
| 1970 | 2,064 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 304 | 5.8 |
| 1971 | 3,497 | 13th lowest of 15 · 244% of median | 304 | 5.8 |
| 1972 | 1,162 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 118 | 5.6 |
| 1973 | 867 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 145 | 4.2 |
| 1978 | 2,510 | 12th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 171 | 7.4 |
| 1981 | 843 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 170 | 2.5 |
| 1984 | 250 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 98 | 1.3 |
| 1985 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-84 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3172 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-1985 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.