Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CRAMER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800616 · 1 · SOPRIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:12 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 1883-04-15 — 94th 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: VAN CLEVE-FISHER FDR D (1883-04-05). Immediately behind: FRYING PAN DITCH (1883-04-20).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12158.0 | 1883-04-15 | 1889-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 58 |
| 12875.0 | 1885-04-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 111 |
| 13238.0 | 1886-03-30 | 1889-05-11 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 137AA |
| 13603.0 | 1887-03-30 | 1889-05-11 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 168 |
| 30941.26418 | 1922-05-01 | 1936-08-25 | 0.002 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 414U |
| 46386.35244 | 1946-06-30 | 1977-12-31 | 1.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W3414, CA3082, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3414 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA0132 | 4 | 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 754 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 924 AF — 122% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 774 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 154 | 4.0 |
| 2011 | 810 | 12th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 159 | 6.0 |
| 2012 | 448 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 184 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 400 | 1st lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 161 | 2.8 |
| 2014 | 756 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 167 | 4.9 |
| 2015 | 796 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 178 | 3.8 |
| 2016 | 744 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 170 | 4.8 |
| 2017 | 754 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 159 | 6.2 |
| 2018 | 614 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 191 | 4.1 |
| 2019 | 1,317 | 15th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 177 | 5.4 |
| 2020 | 949 | 14th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 173 | 4.8 |
| 2021 | 596 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 185 | 5.2 |
| 2022 | 647 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 147 | 4.6 |
| 2023 | 679 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 164 | 3.7 |
| 2024 | 924 | 13th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 182 | 5.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10744 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2024 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.