Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MONITOR DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001183 · 1 · NORTH FORK GUNNISON RIVE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:28 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 1883-02-16 — 167th 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: MALONEY IRR. WELL (1883-01-01). Immediately behind: PAONIA DITCH (1883-03-02).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14413.121 | 1883-02-16 | 1901-04-12 | 6.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 3 |
| 19415.12996 | 1885-07-31 | 1904-02-20 | 1.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 16A |
| 31924.121 | 1883-02-16 | 1954-03-20 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | J7 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3503, 88CW0154, CA0228, 97CW0129, 01CW0079.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3503 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
88CW0154 | 1 | 1904-02-20 | S |
CA0228 | 1 | 1901-04-12 | S |
97CW0129 | 2 | 1901-04-12 | S |
01CW0079 | 2 | 1901-04-12 | 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 1,749 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,537 AF — 88% of that, and 4th 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 | 1,763 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | — | 169 | 6.0 |
| 2011 | 2,022 | 14th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | — | 243 | 6.4 |
| 2012 | 2,539 | 15th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | — | 305 | 8.6 |
| 2013 | 1,894 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 173 | 6.5 |
| 2014 | 1,944 | 13th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | — | 184 | 6.6 |
| 2015 | 1,776 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 201 | 6.2 |
| 2016 | 1,749 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 170 | 6.6 |
| 2017 | 1,338 | 1st lowest of 15 · 76% of median | — | 189 | 6.8 |
| 2018 | 1,805 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 54 | 204 | 6.1 |
| 2019 | 1,354 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | — | 189 | 6.2 |
| 2020 | 1,558 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | — | 192 | 6.3 |
| 2021 | 1,611 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | — | 241 | 5.9 |
| 2022 | 1,652 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 215 | 8.0 |
| 2023 | 1,422 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | — | 179 | 8.6 |
| 2024 | 1,537 | 4th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | — | 192 | 5.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-41 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.010).
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 9967 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 85% 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.