Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RFC DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801541 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:14 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 1886-04-23 — 200th 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: GRACE AND SHEHI DITCH (1886-04-23). Immediately behind: LITTLE ELK DITCH (1886-04-25).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13262.0 | 1886-04-23 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 142 |
| 19164.18925 | 1901-10-25 | 1902-11-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 216 |
| 30886.17349 | 1897-07-01 | 1934-08-27 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 277 |
| 30941.12872 | 1885-03-29 | 1936-08-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 280 |
| 30941.14723 | 1890-04-23 | 1936-08-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 302 |
| 30941.19879 | 1904-06-05 | 1936-08-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 357 |
| 53306.0 | 1995-12-12 | 1995-12-31 | 19.9 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISOTH |
Legal record & documents
16 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
07CW0054, 95CW0356, 16CW3136, 05CW0139, 97CW0053.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
07CW0054 | 4 | 2007-12-31 | S |
95CW0356 | 1 | 1995-12-31 | S |
16CW3136 | 2 | 1995-12-31 | S |
05CW0139 | 3 | 1995-12-31 | S |
97CW0053 | 6 | 1936-08-25 | O, 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 4,659 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 4,428 AF — 95% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 7,299 | 14th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 228 | 28.2 |
| 2011 | 10,604 | 15th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 207 | 37.0 |
| 2012 | 5,584 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 214 | 19.2 |
| 2013 | 6,374 | 12th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 211 | 33.6 |
| 2014 | 6,059 | 11th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 200 | 26.3 |
| 2015 | 7,188 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 213 | 32.0 |
| 2016 | 5,276 | 9th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 211 | 15.4 |
| 2017 | 4,659 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 213 | 16.8 |
| 2018 | 3,844 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 212 | 14.1 |
| 2019 | 3,056 | 1st lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 172 | 12.8 |
| 2020 | 3,715 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 207 | 11.9 |
| 2021 | 4,021 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 202 | 14.3 |
| 2022 | 3,800 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 182 | 24.0 |
| 2023 | 3,309 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 187 | 12.4 |
| 2024 | 4,428 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 193 | 21.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-307 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3936 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 91% of the irrigation seasons in 2004-2024 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.