Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RED ROCK BLUFF DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800959 · 1 · SNOWMASS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:08 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 1901-10-25 — 271st 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: LINDVIG DITCH (1901-07-25). Immediately behind: CAPITOL FALLS DITCH (1898-09-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19164.18925 | 1901-10-25 | 1902-11-10 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 216 |
| 19164.19084 | 1902-04-02 | 1902-11-10 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 217 |
| 30886.17349 | 1897-07-01 | 1934-08-27 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 277 |
| 30941.19879 | 1904-06-05 | 1936-08-25 | 7.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 357 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA3082, 96CW0055, CA3053, W0299.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
96CW0055 | 6 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA3053 | 1 | 1934-08-27 | S |
W0299 | 2 | 1902-11-10 | 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 38 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 13 AF — 34% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | 783 | 11th lowest of 15 · 2060% of median | — | 153 | 3.3 |
| 1994 | 2,285 | 13th lowest of 15 · 6013% of median | — | 179 | 11.0 |
| 1998 | 744 | 10th lowest of 15 · 1958% of median | — | 69 | 9.0 |
| 1999 | 1,035 | 12th lowest of 15 · 2724% of median | — | 86 | 7.2 |
| 2000 | 4,244 | 15th lowest of 15 · 11168% of median | — | 153 | 22.6 |
| 2003 | 3,161 | 14th lowest of 15 · 8318% of median | — | 145 | 15.9 |
| 2015 | 97 | 9th lowest of 15 · 255% of median | — | 20 | 2.6 |
| 2016 | 22 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 22 | 184 | 0.1 |
| 2017 | 22 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 22 | 184 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 38 | 5th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38 | 214 | 0.1 |
| 2019 | 34 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 34 | 184 | 0.1 |
| 2021 | 38 | 5th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38 | 214 | 0.1 |
| 2022 | 38 | 5th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38 | 214 | 0.1 |
| 2023 | 38 | 5th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38 | 214 | 0.1 |
| 2024 | 13 | 1st lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 13 | 214 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-29 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.014).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 5558 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 40% of the irrigation seasons in 1959-2024 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.