Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RAINBOW LAKE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300888 · 1 · NORTH FORK WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:26 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 1926-07-31 — 964th 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: CLUB HOUSE PIPELINE (1925-08-01). Immediately behind: BIG FISH CREEK DITCH (1928-07-31).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29813.2797 | 1926-07-31 | 1932-08-15 | 21.37 | 0.0 | C | STOINDDOM | 19 |
| 45472.0 | 1974-07-01 | 1974-12-31 | 13.63 | 0.0 | C | STOINDFISDOM |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W2430-74, CA0535.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2430-74 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
CA0535 | 1 | 1932-08-15 | 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 10,695 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 10,149 AF — 95% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 12,552 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 365 | 35.0 |
| 2008 | 10,695 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 35.0 |
| 2009 | 12,825 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 365 | 35.0 |
| 2010 | 15,124 | 15th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 365 | 35.0 |
| 2011 | 12,358 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 351 | 35.0 |
| 2012 | 14,928 | 14th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 366 | 40.0 |
| 2013 | 14,648 | 13th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 365 | 35.0 |
| 2014 | 10,850 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 279 | 35.0 |
| 2015 | 4,384 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 189 | 15.0 |
| 2016 | 2,022 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 326 | 5.0 |
| 2017 | 10,307 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 304 | 26.3 |
| 2022 | 180 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 57 | 1.6 |
| 2023 | 10,198 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 123 | 47.7 |
| 2024 | 10,558 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 122 | 47.0 |
| 2025 | 10,149 | 4th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 125 | 45.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-234 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15524 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1966-2025 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.