Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NORTH FORK ORCHARD COMPANY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001025 · 1 · BELL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:54 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 1883-05-01 — 42nd 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: BONE MESA PIPELINE (1883-05-01). Immediately behind: PAONIA PIPELINE (POLE PATCH) (1883-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12174.0 | 1883-05-01 | 1889-06-17 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 29260.20937 | 1907-04-29 | 1937-05-28 | 4.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H63 |
| 31924.12174 | 1883-05-01 | 1954-03-20 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | DOM | J10 |
| 32631.0 | 1939-05-05 | 1954-03-20 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | J237 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3503, 81CW0131, CA2563, CA2574, CA0582.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3503 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
81CW0131 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA2563 | 3 | 1937-05-28 | S |
CA2574 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | O |
CA0582 | 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 323 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 193 AF — 60% of that, and 6th 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 | 264 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 109 | 2.9 |
| 2011 | 609 | 13th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 174 | 6.0 |
| 2012 | 150 | 5th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 69 | 2.1 |
| 2013 | 487 | 11th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 175 | 4.8 |
| 2014 | 478 | 10th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 184 | 4.4 |
| 2015 | 541 | 12th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 248 | 2.8 |
| 2016 | 675 | 14th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 305 | 6.3 |
| 2017 | 323 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 177 | 3.4 |
| 2018 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 213 | 0.5 |
| 2019 | 457 | 9th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 190 | 5.2 |
| 2020 | 46 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 87 | 0.7 |
| 2021 | 8 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 99 | 0.1 |
| 2022 | 115 | 4th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 80 | 1.3 |
| 2023 | 949 | 15th lowest of 15 · 294% of median | 198 | 7.0 |
| 2024 | 193 | 6th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 207 | 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7518 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 68% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2024 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.