Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BASIN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800528 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 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 1882-10-20 — 71st most senior of the 4788 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: PASTURES PIPELINE (1882-10-03). Immediately behind: VAGNEUR WELL NO 1 (1882-10-20).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11981.0 | 1882-10-20 | 1889-05-11 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 49 |
| 12870.0 | 1885-03-27 | 1889-05-11 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 108 |
| 13233.0 | 1886-03-25 | 1889-05-11 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDAUG | 137 |
| 30941.1467 | 1890-03-01 | 1936-08-25 | 33.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 294 |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA3082, 21CW3171, CA0132, 87CW0364.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
21CW3171 | 8 | 1936-08-25 | O, S |
CA0132 | 3 | 1889-05-11 | O |
87CW0364 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | 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 8,806 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 9,106 AF — 103% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 4,494 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | — | 131 | 20.3 |
| 2011 | 4,398 | 1st lowest of 15 · 50% of median | — | 135 | 27.5 |
| 2012 | 9,979 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 47 | 198 | 40.0 |
| 2013 | 7,453 | 4th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 21 | 171 | 39.2 |
| 2014 | 8,806 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 192 | 39.3 |
| 2015 | 8,568 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 16 | 207 | 33.3 |
| 2016 | 8,392 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 69 | 190 | 40.2 |
| 2017 | 7,434 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 69 | 204 | 31.2 |
| 2018 | 8,391 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 69 | 198 | 38.9 |
| 2019 | 10,469 | 12th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 69 | 207 | 36.1 |
| 2020 | 12,042 | 14th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 69 | 201 | 47.2 |
| 2021 | 10,357 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 57 | 182 | 65.4 |
| 2022 | 12,974 | 15th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 69 | 206 | 40.3 |
| 2023 | 11,452 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 69 | 184 | 43.9 |
| 2024 | 9,106 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 69 | 184 | 43.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+437 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8836 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 74% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.