Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
J P O NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700667 · 1 · HERNAGE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:22 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 1908-06-03 — 286th most senior of the 2162 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: MINNIE V DITCH ALT PT (1902-04-15). Immediately behind: J P O NO 2 DITCH (1908-06-03).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22337.21338 | 1908-06-03 | 1911-02-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 293A |
| 27925.24197 | 1916-04-01 | 1926-12-03 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 359 |
| 60630.57861 | 2008-06-01 | 2016-12-31 | 1.7 | 2.3 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
16CW3173, CA0841, CA0548.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
16CW3173 | 2 | 2016-12-31 | S |
CA0841 | 1 | 1926-12-03 | S |
CA0548 | 1 | 1911-02-28 | 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 36 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | 117 | 11th lowest of 15 · 325% of median | 134 | 1.4 |
| 1994 | 321 | 12th lowest of 15 · 892% of median | 65 | 3.0 |
| 1995 | 346 | 13th lowest of 15 · 961% of median | 106 | 3.0 |
| 1996 | 370 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1028% of median | 118 | 2.7 |
| 1997 | 367 | 14th lowest of 15 · 1019% of median | 177 | 2.5 |
| 1998 | 73 | 10th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 36 | 1.5 |
| 2000 | 6 | 7th lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 17 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 38 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 44 | 0.6 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2006 | 36 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2011 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 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 (-7 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2500 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 17% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2018 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.