Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
IMES & REYNOLDS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300710 · 1 · WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:50 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 1888-11-16 — 579th 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: GEORGE S WITTER DITCH (1887-04-15). Immediately behind: G V DITCH (1886-05-01).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17421.142 | 1888-11-16 | 1899-10-02 | 13.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 119 |
| 19238.14246 | 1889-01-01 | 1903-05-25 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 130 |
| 19238.18035 | 1899-05-18 | 1903-05-25 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 131 |
| 39776.316 | 1936-07-08 | 1966-11-21 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 629 |
| 39776.31776 | 1936-12-31 | 1966-11-21 | 3.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 631 |
| 40483.0 | 1960-11-02 | 1966-11-21 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISWLD | 685 |
| 41762.0 | 1964-05-04 | 1966-11-21 | 2.05 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 739 |
| 56247.40483 | 1960-11-02 | 2004-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISWLD |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
04CW0227, W0060, CA1269, CA0562, 10/02/1899.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
04CW0227 | 2 | 2004-12-31 | S |
W0060 | 2 | 1966-11-21 | S |
CA1269 | 3 | 1966-11-21 | S |
CA0562 | 2 | 1903-05-25 | S |
10/02/1899 | 1 | 1899-10-02 | 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 3,039 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,328 AF — 44% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,208 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 89 | 30.0 |
| 2012 | 2,110 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 177 | 18.0 |
| 2013 | 2,743 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 203 | 19.0 |
| 2014 | 2,799 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 304 | 25.4 |
| 2015 | 3,281 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 169 | 19.4 |
| 2016 | 3,132 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 155 | 25.0 |
| 2017 | 3,039 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 139 | 16.7 |
| 2018 | 2,229 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 63 | 21.9 |
| 2019 | 4,849 | 13th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 101 | 35.3 |
| 2020 | 5,078 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 127 | 44.0 |
| 2021 | 1,158 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 52 | 18.6 |
| 2022 | 3,541 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 103 | 40.0 |
| 2023 | 4,548 | 12th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 101 | 44.8 |
| 2024 | 5,808 | 15th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 173 | 42.0 |
| 2025 | 1,328 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 51 | 21.2 |
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 (8/10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7585 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1960-2025 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.