Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CRANE AND PEEBLES DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800618 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:44 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 1885-04-01 — 336th 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: WATERS PUMP (1900-11-18). Immediately behind: FISHER AND HAFF DITCH (1901-10-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21644.12875 | 1885-04-01 | 1909-04-06 | 5.58 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUGOTH | 113CAA |
| 30941.14701 | 1890-04-01 | 1936-08-25 | 5.6121 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 295 |
| 52230.52045 | 1992-06-29 | 1993-12-31 | 0.0 | 20.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIR |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
93CW0192, CA3082, 80CW0107, CA1351.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
93CW0192 | 8 | 1993-12-31 | S |
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
80CW0107 | 4 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA1351 | 1 | 1909-04-06 | 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 3,637 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 3,030 AF — 83% of that, and 1st 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 | 3,876 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | — | 171 | 11.9 |
| 2011 | 3,368 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 138 | 14.3 |
| 2012 | 4,059 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 78 | 205 | 13.5 |
| 2013 | 3,178 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 36 | 174 | 14.0 |
| 2014 | 3,570 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | — | 191 | 13.0 |
| 2015 | 3,989 | 11th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 27 | 204 | 12.1 |
| 2016 | 3,310 | 4th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 117 | 195 | 10.3 |
| 2017 | 3,226 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 117 | 194 | 11.5 |
| 2018 | 3,903 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 117 | 203 | 11.6 |
| 2019 | 4,523 | 15th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 117 | 204 | 15.3 |
| 2020 | 4,396 | 14th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 117 | 208 | 13.9 |
| 2021 | 3,333 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 112 | 185 | 11.4 |
| 2022 | 4,226 | 13th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 116 | 198 | 17.9 |
| 2023 | 3,637 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 117 | 184 | 13.9 |
| 2024 | 3,030 | 1st lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 117 | 184 | 13.6 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8536 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 72% 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.