Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SPRING VALLEY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4100842 · 1 · UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:07 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 1909-09-01 — 465th 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: LEE WASTE D #2 & #4 (1883-06-30). Immediately behind: RHYAN HOME PLACE WASTE D (1912-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48212.21793 | 1909-09-01 | 1982-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 49308.21793 | 1909-09-01 | 1985-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 49308.46933 | 1978-07-01 | 1985-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 51134.21793 | 1909-09-01 | 1990-12-31 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
90CW0060, 85CW0071, 85CW0021, 82CW0088.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
90CW0060 | 1 | 1990-12-31 | S |
85CW0071 | 1 | 1985-12-31 | S |
85CW0021 | 1 | 1985-12-31 | S |
82CW0088 | 1 | 1982-12-31 | 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 12 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 326 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 169 AF — 52% of that, and 1st lowest of the 12 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 226 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 69% of median | 120 | 2.2 |
| 1989 | 186 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 57% of median | 84 | 1.5 |
| 1990 | 323 | 6th lowest of 12 · 99% of median | 146 | 1.8 |
| 1991 | 328 | 7th lowest of 12 · 101% of median | 214 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 407 | 10th lowest of 12 · 125% of median | 159 | 3.2 |
| 1993 | 372 | 8th lowest of 12 · 114% of median | 154 | 1.8 |
| 1994 | 486 | 11th lowest of 12 · 149% of median | 143 | 2.8 |
| 1995 | 400 | 9th lowest of 12 · 123% of median | 99 | 4.2 |
| 1996 | 321 | 5th lowest of 12 · 99% of median | 115 | 2.2 |
| 1997 | 507 | 12th lowest of 12 · 156% of median | 155 | 2.5 |
| 1998 | 292 | 4th lowest of 12 · 90% of median | 121 | 1.9 |
| 2012 | 169 | 1st lowest of 12 · 52% of median | 164 | 0.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
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
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1674 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1988-2012 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.