Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH AND MCKNIGHT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001197 · 1 · NORTH FORK GUNNISON RIVE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:23 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 1896-06-01 — 602nd 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: TERROR DITCH EXTENSION (1894-01-01). Immediately behind: FRUIT GROWERS RESERVOIR (1898-10-15).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16954.0 | 1896-06-01 | 1901-04-12 | 4.05 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 32 |
| 19415.16954 | 1896-06-01 | 1904-02-20 | 0.875 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 32 |
| 19415.18718 | 1901-04-01 | 1904-02-20 | 0.625 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 40 |
| 19415.19083 | 1902-04-01 | 1904-02-20 | 0.333 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 42 |
| 19448.0 | 1903-04-01 | 1904-02-20 | 1.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 43 |
| 30771.0 | 1934-04-01 | 1937-05-28 | 2.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H160 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA2563, 75CW0181, CA0346, CA0228, 04CW0136.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2563 | 2 | 1937-05-28 | S |
75CW0181 | 1 | 1937-05-28 | S |
CA0346 | 4 | 1904-02-20 | S |
CA0228 | 1 | 1901-04-12 | S |
04CW0136 | 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 2,617 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,448 AF — 55% of that, and 1st 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 | 3,551 | 15th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 191 | 10.0 |
| 2011 | 2,937 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 170 | 10.0 |
| 2012 | 3,206 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 159 | 12.5 |
| 2013 | 3,242 | 13th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 181 | 15.1 |
| 2014 | 3,299 | 14th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 191 | 11.6 |
| 2015 | 2,911 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 189 | 8.8 |
| 2016 | 3,074 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 193 | 9.2 |
| 2017 | 2,469 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 201 | 9.1 |
| 2018 | 2,617 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 200 | 9.4 |
| 2019 | 2,492 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 205 | 9.0 |
| 2020 | 2,434 | 4th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 204 | 9.1 |
| 2021 | 2,456 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 201 | 8.6 |
| 2022 | 2,368 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 200 | 8.0 |
| 2023 | 1,809 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 196 | 6.6 |
| 2024 | 1,448 | 1st lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 149 | 7.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-112 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9317 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 80% 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.