Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GRANGE AND CERISE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800716 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:17 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 1887-05-27 — 223rd 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: GOOD FRIEND DITCH (1887-05-25). Immediately behind: HOME SUPPLY DITCH (1887-05-27).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13661.0 | 1887-05-27 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 179 |
| 29484.20209 | 1905-05-01 | 1931-01-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 261 |
| 36396.27879 | 1926-05-01 | 1952-10-24 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRROTH | 537 |
| 36980.0 | 1951-04-01 | 1952-10-24 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | FISOTH | 622 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4033, 79CW0233.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4033 | 2 | 1952-10-24 | S |
79CW0233 | 2 | 1931-01-12 | O, 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 2,992 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 1,792 AF — 60% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1984 | 1,388 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 175 | 4.0 |
| 1985 | 1,388 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 175 | 4.0 |
| 1988 | 2,514 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 170 | 7.5 |
| 1990 | 3,762 | 14th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 186 | 11.3 |
| 1991 | 2,941 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 162 | 19.7 |
| 1992 | 3,448 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 182 | 16.0 |
| 1993 | 4,967 | 15th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 365 | 18.1 |
| 1994 | 3,729 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 365 | 8.0 |
| 1995 | 2,992 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 6.5 |
| 1996 | 484 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 61 | 4.0 |
| 1997 | 3,574 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 365 | 6.0 |
| 1998 | 3,301 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 365 | 6.0 |
| 1999 | 2,737 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 365 | 5.2 |
| 2000 | 3,154 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 276 | 8.0 |
| 2020 | 1,792 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 149 | 19.2 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5100 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2020 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.