Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SENECA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700868 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:53 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 1885-04-15 — 37th 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: WALDEN WELL NO 2 MIDDLE (1885-04-01). Immediately behind: BUCKEYE DITCH (1885-04-15).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12889.0 | 1885-04-15 | 1892-09-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 26(25) |
| 13251.0 | 1886-04-12 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 49(47) |
| 13635.0 | 1887-05-01 | 1892-09-19 | 24.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 79(77), 84 |
| 14032.0 | 1888-06-01 | 1892-09-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 134(123) |
| 14366.0 | 1889-05-01 | 1902-04-23 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 177 |
| 14397.0 | 1889-06-01 | 1892-09-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 188(169) |
| 50403.35589 | 1947-06-10 | 1988-12-31 | 40.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
88CW0152, CA1519, 79CW0193, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0152 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
CA1519 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
79CW0193 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
CA0922 | 5 | 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 5,412 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 4,280 AF — 79% 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 | 5,412 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 62 | 90.0 |
| 2011 | 7,713 | 14th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 76 | 66.8 |
| 2012 | 3,597 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 74 | 60.6 |
| 2013 | 5,303 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 67 | 67.9 |
| 2014 | 5,385 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 54 | 61.3 |
| 2015 | 6,713 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 77 | 55.9 |
| 2016 | 5,697 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 63 | 50.8 |
| 2017 | 6,967 | 12th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 75 | 74.8 |
| 2018 | 5,517 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 78 | 45.8 |
| 2019 | 2,157 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 16 | 72.5 |
| 2020 | 4,200 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 74 | 49.0 |
| 2021 | 3,657 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 56 | 43.4 |
| 2022 | 7,908 | 15th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 57 | 74.2 |
| 2023 | 7,127 | 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 62 | 70.0 |
| 2025 | 4,280 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 70 | 52.8 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3363 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% 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.