Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KING RANCH DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 3800802 · 1 · FRYINGPAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:36 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 1922-09-01 — 859th 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: ARLIAN DITCH NO 2 (1921-06-15). Immediately behind: KING RANCH DITCH 1 HGT 2 (1922-09-01).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37552.26541 | 1922-09-01 | 1958-06-20 | 4.79 | 0.0 | C | FISOTH | 658 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W2713, CA4613, 05CW0088.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2713 | 1 | 1958-06-20 | S |
CA4613 | 1 | 1958-06-20 | S |
05CW0088 | 2 | 1958-06-20 | 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 827 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 262 AF — 32% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1979 | 729 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 365 | 3.0 |
| 1980 | 1,809 | 14th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 304 | 3.0 |
| 2007 | 404 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 62 | 8.0 |
| 2008 | 1,056 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 255 | 4.4 |
| 2009 | 827 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 3.0 |
| 2010 | 831 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 187 | 4.8 |
| 2011 | 1,328 | 12th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 359 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 762 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 305 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 640 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 206 | 2.7 |
| 2014 | 1,006 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 212 | 3.4 |
| 2015 | 1,655 | 13th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 261 | 6.8 |
| 2016 | 742 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 186 | 2.3 |
| 2017 | 1,811 | 15th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 236 | 5.8 |
| 2018 | 520 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 143 | 1.9 |
| 2021 | 262 | 1st lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 58 | 2.3 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4155 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2021 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.