Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NORTH PARK DITCH NO 5
Structure dossier · WDID 4700803 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:23 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 1887-04-05 — 96th 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: NINE SIX NINE DITCH (1887-04-01). Immediately behind: DALOM DITCH (1887-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13609.0 | 1887-04-05 | 1892-09-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 70(68) |
| 15151.0 | 1891-06-25 | 1892-09-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 250(222) |
| 30280.15462 | 1892-05-01 | 1939-06-20 | 23.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 675 |
| 50403.32659 | 1939-06-02 | 1988-12-31 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 50610.0 | 1988-07-25 | 1988-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
88CW0174, CA0286, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0174 | 2 | 1988-12-31 | S |
CA0286 | 1 | 1939-06-20 | 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 1,052 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 551 AF — 52% of that, and 2nd 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 | 1,278 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 73 | 17.2 |
| 2012 | 1,091 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 86 | 10.9 |
| 2013 | 1,052 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 55 | 13.0 |
| 2014 | 1,441 | 12th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 54 | 18.1 |
| 2015 | 1,254 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 142 | 10.6 |
| 2016 | 1,746 | 14th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 93 | 22.6 |
| 2017 | 1,915 | 15th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 100 | 16.8 |
| 2018 | 1,612 | 13th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 114 | 18.0 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 872 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 66 | 12.0 |
| 2021 | 709 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 65 | 8.1 |
| 2022 | 863 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 50 | 12.0 |
| 2023 | 1,021 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 60 | 10.2 |
| 2024 | 904 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 82 | 25.0 |
| 2025 | 551 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 63 | 8.0 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3669 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 20% of the irrigation seasons in 1939-2025 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.