Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

RUSSELL DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 3700785 · 1 · SALT CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 22:28 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 1913-06-30 — 428th 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: SPRADDLE NO 2 DITCH (1913-06-10). Immediately behind: MILLER SALT CREEK DITCH (1913-06-30).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
31983.231911913-06-301956-02-07 1.720.0 CIRRDOM 493

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 295 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 88 AF — 30% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2008 205 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median 305 0.9
2009 295 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 201 0.9
2010 415 11th lowest of 15 · 141% of median 365 0.8
2011 433 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median 365 1.1
2012 501 15th lowest of 15 · 170% of median 366 1.1
2013 426 12th lowest of 15 · 144% of median 359 1.2
2014 448 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median 275 1.4
2016 203 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median 160 0.8
2017 222 7th lowest of 15 · 75% of median 134 1.2
2018 364 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median 154 1.2
2019 304 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median 161 1.2
2021 3 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median 113 0.0
2022 94 4th lowest of 15 · 32% of median 365 0.5
2023 90 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median 365 0.6
2024 88 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median 304 0.3

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 9316 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity continuous 86% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2024 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.