Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ARAPAHOE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700500 · 1 · ARAPAHO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:01 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 1885-06-01 — 57th most senior of the 1262 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: YOCUM NO 1 DITCH (1885-05-31). Immediately behind: BIG WILLOW DITCH (1885-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12936.0 | 1885-06-01 | 1892-09-19 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18 |
| 13649.0 | 1887-05-15 | 1892-09-19 | 11.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 48 |
| 21366.18901 | 1901-10-01 | 1913-01-06 | 18.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 176 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2890, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2890 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
CA0922 | 2 | 1892-09-19 | 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 2,130 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,807 AF — 85% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 2,373 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 119 | 26.3 |
| 2009 | 3,061 | 14th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 136 | 23.2 |
| 2010 | 2,823 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 139 | 25.2 |
| 2011 | 3,391 | 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 83 | 37.8 |
| 2012 | 2,568 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 187 | 7.0 |
| 2013 | 2,882 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 84 | 25.0 |
| 2014 | 2,130 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 81 | 27.9 |
| 2015 | 532 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 33 | 14.9 |
| 2016 | 1,509 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 24 | 45.8 |
| 2018 | 2,543 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 88 | 14.9 |
| 2019 | 331 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 121 | 3.5 |
| 2020 | 25 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 26 | 0.5 |
| 2022 | 1,908 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 76 | 13.0 |
| 2023 | 1,711 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 78 | 11.2 |
| 2024 | 1,807 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 29 | 32.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-108 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
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 | 4493 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2024 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.