Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STEWART DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001206 · 1 · NORTH FORK GUNNISON RIVE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:12 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 1882-06-01 — 164th 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: HICE DITCH (1888-01-25). Immediately behind: VANDEFORD DITCH (1883-01-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14413.1184 | 1882-06-01 | 1901-04-12 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 15702.0 | 1892-12-27 | 1901-04-12 | 4.73 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 19415.1677 | 1895-11-30 | 1904-02-20 | 50.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 31B |
| 19415.18718 | 1901-04-01 | 1904-02-20 | 1.06 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 40 |
| 25807.22261 | 1910-12-13 | 1930-02-10 | 19.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | G69 |
| 52595.25932 | 1920-12-31 | 1994-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
16CW0008, 94CW0243, CA2030, CA2364, CA0346.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
16CW0008 | 1 | 2016-12-31 | S |
94CW0243 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA2030 | 1 | 1930-02-10 | S |
CA2364 | 3 | 1904-02-20 | S |
CA0346 | 1 | 1904-02-20 | 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 20,021 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 21,124 AF — 106% of that, and 13th 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 | 19,080 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 196 | 64.0 |
| 2011 | 20,378 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 177 | 66.0 |
| 2012 | 17,417 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 196 | 66.8 |
| 2013 | 18,968 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 219 | 65.0 |
| 2014 | 20,021 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 194 | 64.6 |
| 2015 | 22,159 | 15th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 204 | 65.0 |
| 2016 | 20,817 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 198 | 66.8 |
| 2017 | 21,114 | 12th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 194 | 70.0 |
| 2018 | 13,923 | 1st lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 224 | 67.9 |
| 2019 | 21,808 | 14th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 201 | 70.0 |
| 2020 | 16,534 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 204 | 70.0 |
| 2021 | 18,733 | 4th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 197 | 70.5 |
| 2022 | 20,892 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 200 | 67.0 |
| 2023 | 19,567 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 159 | 72.5 |
| 2024 | 21,124 | 13th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 201 | 70.3 |
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 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 | 9864 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 84% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.