Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DRY CRK DITCH MICHIGAN R
Structure dossier · WDID 4700595 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:57 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 1898-08-24 — 289th 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: HEINEMAN DITCH (1898-05-15). Immediately behind: DRY CRK DITCH RILEY CRK (1898-08-24).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17768.0 | 1898-08-24 | 1902-04-23 | 11.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 292(278) |
| 21366.20185 | 1905-04-07 | 1913-01-06 | 4.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 348 |
| 45290.44824 | 1972-09-21 | 1974-12-31 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 45868.0 | 1975-08-01 | 1975-12-31 | 15.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 50403.4529 | 1973-12-31 | 1988-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
88CW0104, W0890-75, W0703-74, CA2891, CA1519.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0104 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
W0890-75 | 2 | 1975-12-31 | S |
W0703-74 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
CA2891 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | 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 630 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 367 AF — 58% of that, and 5th 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 | 1,875 | 12th lowest of 15 · 298% of median | 107 | 28.0 |
| 2011 | 2,348 | 14th lowest of 15 · 373% of median | 76 | 23.6 |
| 2012 | 310 | 4th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 34 | 10.0 |
| 2013 | 1,027 | 9th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 79 | 15.0 |
| 2014 | 1,884 | 13th lowest of 15 · 299% of median | 42 | 25.0 |
| 2015 | 1,849 | 11th lowest of 15 · 294% of median | 85 | 24.2 |
| 2016 | 1,718 | 10th lowest of 15 · 273% of median | 143 | 20.2 |
| 2017 | 371 | 6th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 146 | 1.6 |
| 2018 | 171 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 79 | 1.1 |
| 2019 | 158 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 58 | 30.3 |
| 2020 | 382 | 7th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 39 | 10.6 |
| 2021 | 136 | 1st lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 35 | 11.5 |
| 2023 | 3,506 | 15th lowest of 15 · 556% of median | 132 | 33.6 |
| 2024 | 630 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 21 | 15.9 |
| 2025 | 367 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 21 | 12.8 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4547 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% 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.