Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RATCLIFF DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4400740 · 1 · EAST FORK WILLIAMS FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:00 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 1888-03-30 — 174th 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: JUNIPER DITCH AP #2 (1888-03-10). Immediately behind: SHEARS DEAL DITCH AP 2 (1888-03-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19250.13969 | 1888-03-30 | 1902-09-18 | 1.17 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 37 |
| 40421.28641 | 1928-06-01 | 1972-05-30 | 9.47 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 10C |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2259, 09/18/1902.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2259 | 1 | 1972-05-30 | S |
09/18/1902 | 1 | 1902-09-18 | 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 1,011 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,043 AF — 103% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 1,355 | 15th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 109 | 8.0 |
| 2006 | 1,289 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 84 | 10.0 |
| 2007 | 1,289 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 88 | 10.0 |
| 2008 | 1,146 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 85 | 10.0 |
| 2009 | 764 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 100 | 6.0 |
| 2010 | 1,031 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 107 | 10.0 |
| 2011 | 276 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 41 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 987 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 93 | 10.0 |
| 2013 | 1,025 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 91 | 10.0 |
| 2014 | 740 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 59 | 10.0 |
| 2015 | 623 | 4th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 92 | 5.0 |
| 2016 | 1,011 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 8.0 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 1,043 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 94 | 6.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-65 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.005).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4650 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.