Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OLD RELIABLE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000772 · 1 · SURFACE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:12 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 1886-12-31 — 152nd 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: BONITA DITCH (1886-12-31). Immediately behind: CEDAR PARK DITCH (1887-02-21).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13514.0 | 1886-12-31 | 1889-06-17 | 3.201 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18 |
| 20501.14413 | 1889-06-17 | 1907-09-28 | 1.166 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 38064.25719 | 1920-06-01 | 1964-01-31 | 0.06 | 0.0 | C | IRR | K45 |
| 54372.0 | 1998-11-12 | 1998-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
9 court cases:
98CW0161, W0315, CA4808, 93CW0019, 90CW0135, CA0457, 79CW0161, CA0038, 75CW0095.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0161 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
W0315 | 1 | 1964-01-31 | S |
CA4808 | 1 | 1964-01-31 | S |
93CW0019 | 3 | 1964-01-31 | O, S |
90CW0135 | 3 | 1964-01-31 | O, S |
CA0457 | 1 | 1907-09-28 | S |
79CW0161 | 2 | 1907-09-28 | O, S |
CA0038 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | O |
75CW0095 | 1 | 1889-06-17 | O |
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 187 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 180 AF — 96% of that, and 5th 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 | 255 | 10th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 68 | 3.2 |
| 2011 | 316 | 12th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 90 | 2.8 |
| 2012 | 103 | 4th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 49 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 78 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 45 | 1.3 |
| 2014 | 187 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 2.5 |
| 2015 | 252 | 9th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 98 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 270 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 117 | 2.6 |
| 2017 | 364 | 14th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 114 | 3.0 |
| 2018 | 37 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 23 | 1.4 |
| 2019 | 472 | 15th lowest of 15 · 252% of median | 163 | 2.6 |
| 2020 | 187 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 101 | 1.6 |
| 2021 | 24 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 18 | 1.2 |
| 2022 | 182 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 94 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 358 | 13th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 119 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 180 | 5th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 91 | 1.6 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6210 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 53% 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.