Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801001 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:52 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 1888-06-01 — 505th 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: RIVERSIDE DITCH (1888-06-01). Immediately behind: SMITH NO 2 DITCH (1888-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30941.14032 | 1888-06-01 | 1936-08-25 | 4.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 288 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3082, 91CW0178.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
91CW0178 | 2 | 1936-08-25 | 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 437 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2003, came in at 347 AF — 79% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980 | 1,012 | 14th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 170 | 3.0 |
| 1981 | 720 | 11th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 122 | 3.0 |
| 1982 | 714 | 10th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 121 | 3.0 |
| 1983 | 910 | 13th lowest of 15 · 208% of median | 153 | 3.0 |
| 1984 | 1,012 | 14th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 170 | 3.0 |
| 1985 | 827 | 12th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 140 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 437 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 85 | 3.2 |
| 1995 | 248 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 26 | 5.0 |
| 1996 | 472 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 62 | 4.9 |
| 1997 | 253 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 51 | 4.0 |
| 1998 | 276 | 6th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 99 | 1.6 |
| 1999 | 112 | 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 108 | 0.8 |
| 2000 | 178 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 169 | 0.6 |
| 2001 | 180 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 168 | 0.6 |
| 2003 | 347 | 7th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 97 | 1.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-34 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2168 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 30% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2003 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.