Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SQUIBOB DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700893 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:54 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 1888-04-30 — 144th 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: CLEVELAND DITCH (1888-04-30). Immediately behind: HILLSIDE DITCH (1888-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14000.0 | 1888-04-30 | 1892-09-19 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 117(108) |
| 14808.0 | 1890-07-17 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 234(209) |
| 18761.0 | 1901-05-14 | 1902-04-23 | 27.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 309(290) |
| 37913.0 | 1953-10-20 | 1958-01-10 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 777 |
| 47481.46505 | 1977-04-29 | 1980-12-31 | 60.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNINDRECFISDOM | |
| 48027.0 | 1981-06-29 | 1988-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 50403.32353 | 1938-07-31 | 1988-12-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
88CW0122, 88CW0075, 85CW0176, 80CW0227, CA0511, CA3571, CA1519, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0122 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
88CW0075 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | O |
85CW0176 | 1 | 1980-12-31 | S |
80CW0227 | 2 | 1980-12-31 | S |
CA0511 | 1 | 1958-01-10 | S |
CA3571 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
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 3,957 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,631 AF — 66% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,615 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 39 | 60.1 |
| 2012 | 6,365 | 14th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 255 | 34.1 |
| 2013 | 5,938 | 13th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 201 | 40.9 |
| 2014 | 2,360 | 1st lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 38 | 40.1 |
| 2015 | 4,653 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 93 | 40.1 |
| 2016 | 2,822 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 58 | 40.5 |
| 2017 | 4,681 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 70 | 45.6 |
| 2018 | 5,449 | 12th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 96 | 59.1 |
| 2019 | 3,431 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 60 | 42.2 |
| 2020 | 3,753 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 117 | 38.1 |
| 2021 | 3,281 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 139 | 45.6 |
| 2022 | 7,347 | 15th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 129 | 63.0 |
| 2023 | 3,957 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 60 | 38.1 |
| 2024 | 4,612 | 9th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 81 | 43.0 |
| 2025 | 2,631 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 73 | 35.7 |
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 | 5387 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1954-2025 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.