Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RYDEN SPRING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900654 · 4 · WEST ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:55 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 1921-03-01 — 270th most senior of the 1758 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: JULIAN PUMP AND PIPELINE (1921-03-01). Immediately behind: WEST SIDE DITCH (1921-03-04).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32959.25992 | 1921-03-01 | 1943-01-11 | 0.85 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 221 |
| 32959.25992 | 1921-03-01 | 1943-01-11 | 1.95 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 222 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA3431.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3431 | 2 | 1943-01-11 | 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 176 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2006, came in at 234 AF — 133% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 532 | 15th lowest of 15 · 302% of median | 238 | 1.7 |
| 1993 | 289 | 13th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 294 | 1.4 |
| 1994 | 98 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 255 | 0.4 |
| 1995 | 169 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 214 | 0.6 |
| 1996 | 154 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 264 | 0.6 |
| 1997 | 181 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 275 | 0.5 |
| 1998 | 159 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 365 | 0.4 |
| 1999 | 176 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 142 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 179 | 0.4 |
| 2001 | 53 | 1st lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 65 | 0.4 |
| 2002 | 91 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 86 | 0.6 |
| 2003 | 240 | 11th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 189 | 0.8 |
| 2004 | 250 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 183 | 0.9 |
| 2005 | 291 | 14th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 180 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 234 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 200 | 0.9 |
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 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12271 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-2006 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.