Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WEST FORK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900691 · 1 · PARACHUTE 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 1903-05-18 — 214th 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: HASLEY NO 1 DITCH (1917-10-04). Immediately behind: SPRING DITCH (1909-11-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25648.19495 | 1903-05-18 | 1920-03-27 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDDOMAUGPWROTH | 168A |
| 36204.0 | 1949-02-14 | 1952-09-05 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 9 |
| 50941.0 | 1989-06-21 | 1989-12-31 | 6.678 | 0.0 | C | RCH |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
95CW0293, 87CW0302, 17CW3089, 99CW0317, W2206, CA2011, 99CW0300.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
95CW0293 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
87CW0302 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
17CW3089 | 2 | 1989-12-31 | S |
99CW0317 | 1 | 1952-09-05 | O |
W2206 | 2 | 1920-03-27 | S |
CA2011 | 1 | 1920-03-27 | S |
99CW0300 | 2 | 1920-03-27 | 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 277 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 9 AF — 3% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1986 | 549 | 12th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 99 | 3.6 |
| 1987 | 784 | 13th lowest of 15 · 283% of median | 145 | 3.6 |
| 1988 | 1,397 | 14th lowest of 15 · 504% of median | 181 | 6.3 |
| 1989 | 293 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 25 | 8.0 |
| 1990 | 254 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 100 | 1.9 |
| 1991 | 371 | 11th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 208 | 3.4 |
| 1992 | 119 | 6th lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 36 | 1.9 |
| 1993 | 277 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 106 | 1.9 |
| 1994 | 108 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 44 | 1.8 |
| 1996 | 117 | 5th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 76 | 1.0 |
| 1997 | 116 | 4th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 48 | 1.2 |
| 1998 | 1,797 | 15th lowest of 15 · 649% of median | 125 | 8.2 |
| 2017 | 352 | 10th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 122 | 6.7 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 121 | 0.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-15 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5426 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-2021 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.