← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

ALBUSH DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 4100500 · 1 · HORSEFLY CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 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 1911-09-02104th most senior of the 1104 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: KELLER WELL NO 2 (1912-05-01). Immediately behind: BEACH NO 1 D (1911-09-02).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
24221.225241911-09-021929-07-03 6.00.0 CIRR 143

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 304 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 217 AF — 71% of that, and 5th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2011 647 12th lowest of 15 · 213% of median 78 8.7
2012 282 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median 58 5.3
2013 304 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 55 10.3
2014 535 9th lowest of 15 · 176% of median 70 10.2
2015 639 11th lowest of 15 · 210% of median 96 8.6
2016 598 10th lowest of 15 · 197% of median 86 7.0
2017 1,265 14th lowest of 15 · 416% of median 102 9.2
2018 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 8 0.0
2019 1,290 15th lowest of 15 · 424% of median 99 17.4
2020 178 2nd lowest of 15 · 59% of median 35 9.7
2021 202 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median 45 6.4
2022 202 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median 45 6.4
2023 765 13th lowest of 15 · 252% of median 82 11.8
2024 232 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median 53 4.3
2025 217 5th lowest of 15 · 71% of median 51 4.3

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.

The rubric, component by component
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 4345 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.