Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOME SUPPLY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800757 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:17 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 — 224th 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: GRANGE AND CERISE DITCH (1887-05-27). Immediately behind: DALY WELL NO 1 (1887-05-27).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 | 20.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 179 |
| 29484.20209 | 1905-05-01 | 1931-01-12 | 20.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 261 |
| 30941.18506 | 1900-09-01 | 1936-08-25 | 0.87 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 332 |
| 30941.20923 | 1907-04-15 | 1936-08-25 | 16.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 377 |
| 36396.3602 | 1948-08-14 | 1952-10-24 | 1.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 581 |
| 60265.49778 | 1986-04-15 | 2015-12-31 | 0.0 | 7.0 | C | IRR | |
| 60630.0 | 2015-12-31 | 2015-12-31 | 0.0 | 7.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
15CW3123, 87CW0129, CA3082, CA2811, W1801, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
15CW3123 | 2 | 2015-12-31 | S |
87CW0129 | 2 | 1952-10-24 | S |
CA3082 | 2 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA2811 | 2 | 1931-01-12 | S |
W1801 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA0132 | 1 | 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 18,573 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 18,573 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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 | 18,111 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 164 | 79.3 |
| 2011 | 13,191 | 1st lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 179 | 71.8 |
| 2012 | 20,829 | 14th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 204 | 93.0 |
| 2013 | 14,348 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 199 | 74.1 |
| 2014 | 14,257 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 167 | 76.2 |
| 2015 | 15,149 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 177 | 80.2 |
| 2016 | 15,555 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 166 | 71.9 |
| 2017 | 19,204 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 170 | 78.6 |
| 2018 | 18,831 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 163 | 81.4 |
| 2019 | 17,258 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 191 | 74.8 |
| 2020 | 20,610 | 13th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 185 | 84.5 |
| 2021 | 21,217 | 15th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 183 | 85.5 |
| 2022 | 20,177 | 12th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 182 | 86.8 |
| 2023 | 19,092 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 154 | 94.8 |
| 2024 | 18,573 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 182 | 85.6 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9059 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 76% 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.