Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MATHEWS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700760 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 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 1885-05-01 — 40th 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: EAST BUFFALO DITCH (1885-04-30). Immediately behind: NAIRN DITCH (1885-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12905.0 | 1885-05-01 | 1892-09-19 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27(26) |
| 13604.0 | 1887-03-31 | 1892-09-19 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 67(65) |
| 16602.0 | 1895-06-15 | 1902-04-23 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 279(267) |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1519, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1519 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
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 1,617 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,592 AF — 98% 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 | 2,036 | 13th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 65 | 31.0 |
| 2009 | 2,248 | 14th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 59 | 32.0 |
| 2010 | 3,280 | 15th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 58 | 40.5 |
| 2012 | 1,884 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 70 | 14.0 |
| 2013 | 1,643 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 38 | 22.8 |
| 2014 | 1,617 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 44 | 20.0 |
| 2015 | 413 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 89 | 4.0 |
| 2016 | 1,616 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 50 | 30.3 |
| 2017 | 2,025 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 76 | 25.4 |
| 2018 | 1,127 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 36 | 18.0 |
| 2019 | 39 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 6 | 3.9 |
| 2020 | 487 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 19 | 13.6 |
| 2021 | 798 | 4th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 41 | 17.8 |
| 2023 | 1,828 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 69 | 13.6 |
| 2025 | 1,592 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 64 | 14.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-95 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
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 | 2868 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 19% 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.