Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NINE SIX NINE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700969 · 1 · GRIZZLY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:19 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 1887-04-01 — 95th 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: MIDLAND DITCH (1887-04-01). Immediately behind: NORTH PARK DITCH NO 5 (1887-04-05).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13605.0 | 1887-04-01 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 33 |
| 14335.0 | 1889-03-31 | 1892-09-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 84(76) |
| 23016.19844 | 1904-05-01 | 1921-08-02 | 6.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 196 |
| 24388.0 | 1916-10-09 | 1921-08-02 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 214 |
| 30280.19844 | 1904-05-01 | 1939-06-20 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 705 |
| 43829.41525 | 1963-09-10 | 1970-12-31 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 48577.41525 | 1963-09-10 | 1983-12-31 | 15.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 50769.35137 | 1946-03-15 | 1989-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
89CW0107, 83CW0023, W0035-70, CA0286, CA3570, CA3572, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
89CW0107 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
83CW0023 | 1 | 1983-12-31 | S |
W0035-70 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
CA0286 | 1 | 1939-06-20 | S |
CA3570 | 2 | 1921-08-02 | S |
CA3572 | 1 | 1892-09-19 | O |
CA0922 | 1 | 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 3,532 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 4,289 AF — 121% of that, and 12th 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 | 3,532 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 56 | 55.0 |
| 2012 | 4,527 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 93 | 46.0 |
| 2013 | 3,414 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 51 | 46.0 |
| 2014 | 4,086 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 64 | 60.1 |
| 2015 | 4,781 | 14th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 61 | 60.0 |
| 2016 | 1,712 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 37 | 50.4 |
| 2017 | 3,326 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 62 | 51.6 |
| 2018 | 3,555 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 76 | 23.9 |
| 2019 | 446 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 27 | 9.5 |
| 2020 | 2,467 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 35 | 50.0 |
| 2021 | 3,681 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 70 | 50.0 |
| 2022 | 5,159 | 15th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 58 | 55.0 |
| 2023 | 3,442 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 48 | 64.0 |
| 2024 | 469 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 8 | 33.8 |
| 2025 | 4,289 | 12th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 68 | 50.8 |
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3166 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1959-2025 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.