Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BRIGGS BOHN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700527 · 1 · NORTH FORK NORTH PLATTE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1907-10-14 — 447th 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: FULLER DITCH (1907-06-15). Immediately behind: RIDDLE DITCH (1908-04-06).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21366.21105 | 1907-10-14 | 1913-01-06 | 36.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 186 |
| 33534.21335 | 1908-05-31 | 1958-01-10 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 746 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0511, CA2890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0511 | 1 | 1958-01-10 | S |
CA2890 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | 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 4,572 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,071 AF — 111% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 4,189 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 187 | 42.0 |
| 2010 | 3,029 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 130 | 40.0 |
| 2012 | 4,572 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 144 | 36.4 |
| 2013 | 4,045 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 145 | 29.1 |
| 2014 | 4,410 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 138 | 39.2 |
| 2015 | 4,883 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 89 | 42.1 |
| 2016 | 1,769 | 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 92 | 27.8 |
| 2017 | 4,092 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 142 | 26.8 |
| 2018 | 4,093 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 68 | 42.5 |
| 2019 | 6,430 | 15th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 65 | 70.8 |
| 2020 | 6,410 | 14th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 76 | 63.4 |
| 2021 | 5,449 | 13th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 111 | 48.8 |
| 2023 | 4,764 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 69 | 45.8 |
| 2024 | 4,635 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 64 | 59.1 |
| 2025 | 5,071 | 12th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 79 | 57.5 |
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 | 4723 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1953-2025 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.