Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

SMITH FORK DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 3801004 · 1 · TONER CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 00:35 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 1912-05-05 — 591st 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: HAWK DITCH (SPRINGS) (1912-01-01). Immediately behind: CLAVEL PIPELINE (1912-06-15).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
30941.22771912-05-051936-08-25 0.180.0 CIRR 389

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 61 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2003, came in at 61 AF — 100% of that, and 8th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1982 21 3rd lowest of 15 · 34% of median 53 0.2
1983 39 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median 100 0.2
1984 43 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median 110 0.2
1985 55 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median 140 0.2
1986 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 1 0.0
1990 30 4th lowest of 15 · 49% of median 61 0.2
1991 151 11th lowest of 15 · 248% of median 304 0.2
1992 157 12th lowest of 15 · 257% of median 100 0.8
1993 65 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median 164 0.2
1997 88 10th lowest of 15 · 144% of median 123 0.4
1998 197 14th lowest of 15 · 323% of median 118 0.9
1999 175 13th lowest of 15 · 287% of median 117 0.9
2000 227 15th lowest of 15 · 372% of median 124 1.1
2001 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 1 0.0
2003 61 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 101 0.3

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 2158 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 36% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2003 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.