Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH AND NEVE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500768 · 1 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:34 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1887-02-26 — 60th most senior of the 1378 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: SMITH DITCH (1886-11-20). Immediately behind: DOBEY DITCH (1887-03-07).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13571.0 | 1887-02-26 | 1888-05-05 | 2.12 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 65 |
| 13800.0 | 1887-10-13 | 1888-05-05 | 0.36 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 96A |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2155, CA0089, 05/05/1888.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2155 | 5 | 1888-05-05 | O |
CA0089 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | O |
05/05/1888 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
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 249 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 317 AF — 127% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 249 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 64 | 2.8 |
| 2011 | 459 | 15th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 86 | 3.9 |
| 2012 | 184 | 4th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 48 | 2.1 |
| 2013 | 186 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 44 | 2.5 |
| 2014 | 315 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 67 | 4.8 |
| 2015 | 274 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 67 | 3.5 |
| 2016 | 251 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 58 | 3.0 |
| 2017 | 249 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 62 | 2.5 |
| 2018 | 120 | 1st lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 33 | 2.5 |
| 2019 | 444 | 14th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 93 | 3.8 |
| 2020 | 153 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 39 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 123 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 35 | 2.1 |
| 2022 | 241 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 58 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 428 | 13th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 88 | 3.4 |
| 2024 | 317 | 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 75 | 3.3 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2836 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.