Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ANDERSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000507 · 1 · SMITH FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:42 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 1886-01-01 — 619th most senior of the 4661 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: MAHER DITCH (1885-12-31). Immediately behind: JERSEY DITCH (1886-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19413.1315 | 1886-01-01 | 1903-02-27 | 0.094 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 7 |
| 19413.16162 | 1894-04-01 | 1903-02-27 | 0.169 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 19413.16893 | 1896-04-01 | 1903-02-27 | 0.094 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 32 |
| 19413.17988 | 1899-04-01 | 1903-02-27 | 0.094 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 38 |
| 21884.0 | 1909-12-01 | 1914-06-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A113 |
| 22026.0 | 1910-04-22 | 1914-06-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A117 |
| 44925.37985 | 1953-12-31 | 1973-12-31 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
19 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W2052, 03CW0286, CA0340, 84CW0166.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2052 | 1 | 1973-12-31 | S |
03CW0286 | 12 | 1973-12-31 | S |
CA0340 | 4 | 1903-02-27 | S |
84CW0166 | 2 | 1903-02-27 | 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 201 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 504 AF — 251% of that, and 15th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 243 | 13th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | — | 183 | 1.2 |
| 2011 | 180 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 131 | 1.1 |
| 2012 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | — | 69 | 0.6 |
| 2013 | 201 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 156 | 1.7 |
| 2014 | 220 | 11th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | — | 196 | 1.1 |
| 2015 | 197 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | — | 182 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 237 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | — | 191 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 190 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 147 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 61 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | — | 80 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 196 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | — | 175 | 1.1 |
| 2020 | 153 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | — | 93 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 205 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 203 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 297 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | — | 108 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 208 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 0 | 99 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 504 | 15th lowest of 15 · 251% of median | 0 | 190 | 2.0 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7774 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.