Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAILEY DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 4300518 · 1 · SOUTH FORK WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:48 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1890-11-29 — 741st most senior of the 3293 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: BAILEY DITCH NO 2 (1889-05-15). Immediately behind: J W BAINBRICK D NO 1 (1893-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25767.14943 | 1890-11-29 | 1920-08-16 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 246 |
| 32172.14944 | 1890-11-30 | 1942-05-26 | 0.27 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 357 |
| 32172.15095 | 1891-04-30 | 1942-05-26 | 2.65 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 358 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0624, 02CW0285, CA0333.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0624 | 2 | 1942-05-26 | S |
02CW0285 | 6 | 1942-05-26 | S |
CA0333 | 1 | 1920-08-16 | 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 171 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 156 AF — 91% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 227 | 10th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 106 | 1.5 |
| 2004 | 378 | 14th lowest of 15 · 221% of median | 166 | 1.5 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 15 | 0.0 |
| 2006 | 357 | 13th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 88 | 2.5 |
| 2007 | 250 | 11th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 115 | 1.5 |
| 2008 | 171 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 94 | 1.5 |
| 2009 | 316 | 12th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 130 | 2.5 |
| 2010 | 378 | 14th lowest of 15 · 221% of median | 134 | 3.0 |
| 2011 | 143 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 40 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 42 | 4th lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 25 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 54 | 5th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 27 | 1.5 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 7 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 181 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 84 | 1.1 |
| 2017 | 156 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 57 | 1.4 |
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 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3211 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2017 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.