Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOYCE BROS DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 4700524 · 1 · ILLINOIS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:07 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 1894-10-16 — 272nd 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: CARNEY DITCH (1894-07-01). Immediately behind: OKLAHOMA DITCH NO 2 (1894-10-18).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16360.0 | 1894-10-16 | 1902-04-23 | 9.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 275(263) |
| 30280.18748 | 1901-05-01 | 1939-06-20 | 20.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 700 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0286, CA1519.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0286 | 1 | 1939-06-20 | S |
CA1519 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | 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 672 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 11 AF — 2% of that, and 1st 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 | 781 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 71 | 9.2 |
| 2009 | 654 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 104 | 6.1 |
| 2010 | 2,161 | 13th lowest of 15 · 322% of median | 70 | 45.0 |
| 2011 | 4,922 | 15th lowest of 15 · 732% of median | 85 | 45.0 |
| 2013 | 528 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 36 | 10.4 |
| 2015 | 125 | 4th lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 17 | 5.4 |
| 2016 | 928 | 11th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 75 | 6.6 |
| 2017 | 2,149 | 12th lowest of 15 · 320% of median | 78 | 40.1 |
| 2018 | 331 | 5th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 57 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 2,228 | 14th lowest of 15 · 332% of median | 128 | 15.2 |
| 2020 | 728 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 64 | 11.6 |
| 2021 | 98 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 44 | 3.8 |
| 2022 | 672 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 118 | 3.3 |
| 2024 | 100 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 21 | 2.7 |
| 2025 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 7 | 3.0 |
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 | 3741 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 25% of the irrigation seasons in 1955-2025 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.