Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STORTS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000907 · 1 · GUNNISON RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:26 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 1882-03-02 — 34th 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: PEEPLES PUMP&PIPE (1882-03-02). Immediately behind: MCNEIL DITCH (1882-04-01).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11749.0 | 1882-03-02 | 1890-06-30 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 21263.17578 | 1898-02-15 | 1914-06-23 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A49 |
| 21263.21123 | 1907-11-01 | 1914-06-23 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A97 |
| 38120.0 | 1954-05-15 | 1964-01-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | K113 |
| 39537.0 | 1958-04-01 | 1964-01-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | K154 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4808, 14CW3001, 09CW0140, CA0617.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4808 | 1 | 1964-01-31 | S |
14CW3001 | 3 | 1964-01-31 | O, S |
09CW0140 | 4 | 1964-01-31 | S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | 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 494 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2000, came in at 566 AF — 115% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1984 | 266 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 64 | 3.0 |
| 1985 | 442 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 90 | 3.0 |
| 1986 | 405 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 79 | 3.0 |
| 1987 | 601 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 107 | 3.0 |
| 1988 | 411 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 76 | 3.0 |
| 1989 | 666 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 124 | 3.0 |
| 1990 | 726 | 14th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 131 | 3.0 |
| 1991 | 726 | 14th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 136 | 3.0 |
| 1992 | 696 | 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 130 | 3.0 |
| 1993 | 494 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 92 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 613 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 120 | 3.0 |
| 1995 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 1997 | 458 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 89 | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2000 | 566 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 179 | 2.1 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2948 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2000 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.