Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JOHN W WALKER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001162 · 1 · ROBERTS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:33 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 1909-07-15 — 1316th 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: STONE DITCH (1909-05-27). Immediately behind: FRANK ANDERSON DITCH (1909-12-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21745.0 | 1909-07-15 | 1914-06-23 | 0.125 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A111 |
| 24894.23549 | 1914-06-23 | 1920-08-28 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | B43 |
| 56613.51255 | 1990-05-01 | 2005-12-31 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
05CW0144, CA1424, CA0617.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0144 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
CA1424 | 1 | 1920-08-28 | 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 368 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 286 AF — 78% 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 | 444 | 12th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 119 | 3.5 |
| 2011 | 749 | 15th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 135 | 5.1 |
| 2012 | 349 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 95 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 395 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 78 | 4.2 |
| 2014 | 679 | 14th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 116 | 5.9 |
| 2015 | 541 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 161 | 4.8 |
| 2016 | 376 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 89 | 4.1 |
| 2017 | 432 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 107 | 5.1 |
| 2018 | 89 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 64 | 3.3 |
| 2019 | 368 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 124 | 3.5 |
| 2020 | 330 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 128 | 3.5 |
| 2021 | 210 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 124 | 2.2 |
| 2022 | 254 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 57 | 3.7 |
| 2023 | 262 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 49 | 3.8 |
| 2024 | 286 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 72 | 3.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-21 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.008).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5650 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 49% 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.