Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARTIN CK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4400692 · 1 · MARTIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:05 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 1900-05-30 — 243rd most senior of the 3562 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 - ORIGINAL (1898-08-01). Immediately behind: SAMPSON DITCH (1902-07-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19621.18412 | 1900-05-30 | 1903-09-26 | 8.34 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 102A |
| 36295.33753 | 1942-05-31 | 1960-09-01 | 6.06 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 52 |
| 36295.33758 | 1942-06-05 | 1960-09-01 | 47.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 7 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1278, 84CW0071, 09/26/1903.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1278 | 4 | 1960-09-01 | S |
84CW0071 | 2 | 1960-09-01 | S |
09/26/1903 | 1 | 1903-09-26 | 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 1,593 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 960 AF — 60% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2,406 | 12th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | — | 137 | 20.0 |
| 2006 | 1,291 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | — | 191 | 10.0 |
| 2007 | 403 | 1st lowest of 15 · 25% of median | — | 81 | 4.0 |
| 2008 | 1,444 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | — | 135 | 10.0 |
| 2009 | 1,593 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 133 | 12.0 |
| 2010 | 1,739 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | — | 150 | 20.0 |
| 2011 | 6,809 | 15th lowest of 15 · 427% of median | — | 104 | 85.0 |
| 2012 | 1,683 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 147 | 14.1 |
| 2013 | 2,046 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | — | 155 | 13.6 |
| 2014 | 5,196 | 14th lowest of 15 · 326% of median | — | 129 | 62.2 |
| 2015 | 3,588 | 13th lowest of 15 · 225% of median | 1,646 | 170 | 41.0 |
| 2016 | 1,520 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 138 | 10.6 |
| 2017 | 619 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | — | 73 | 10.6 |
| 2019 | 672 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | — | 85 | 4.1 |
| 2020 | 960 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | — | 126 | 4.7 |
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 | 7245 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 38% of the irrigation seasons in 1936-2024 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.