Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WILLIAMS NO 4 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801098 · 1 · SNOWMASS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:38 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 1883-05-01 — 262nd 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: WILLIAMS NO 1 D CAP CR (1881-07-01). Immediately behind: WILLIAMS NO 5 DITCH (1883-05-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19145.12174 | 1883-05-01 | 1902-06-21 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 63A |
| 59657.0 | 2013-05-02 | 2013-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | RECFISFIROTH |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
13CW3038, CA0968, 14CW3129, 12CW0193.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
13CW3038 | 1 | 2013-12-31 | S |
CA0968 | 1 | 1902-06-21 | S |
14CW3129 | 2 | 1902-06-21 | S |
12CW0193 | 2 | 1902-06-21 | 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 430 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 390 AF — 91% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 859 | 14th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 149 | 3.5 |
| 2003 | 655 | 12th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 174 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 307 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 140 | 3.5 |
| 2014 | 397 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 170 | 2.6 |
| 2015 | 190 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 137 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 360 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 175 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 430 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 168 | 2.2 |
| 2018 | 497 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 173 | 4.0 |
| 2019 | 461 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 199 | 2.4 |
| 2020 | 274 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 171 | 0.9 |
| 2021 | 785 | 13th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 155 | 4.9 |
| 2022 | 971 | 15th lowest of 15 · 226% of median | 130 | 8.9 |
| 2023 | 600 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 162 | 3.8 |
| 2024 | 390 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 125 | 3.1 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4674 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.