Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ALVIN H NORELL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4701009 · 1 · ROARING FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:00 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 1887-05-15 — 118th 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: STEVENSON NO 2 DITCH (1887-05-15). Immediately behind: ANTELOPE DITCH (1887-05-15).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13649.0 | 1887-05-15 | 1892-09-19 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 47 |
| 24672.0 | 1917-07-20 | 1921-08-02 | 16.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 215 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3570, W1424-78.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3570 | 1 | 1921-08-02 | S |
W1424-78 | 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 1,270 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 2,844 AF — 224% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 715 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 125 | 5.0 |
| 2003 | 480 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 35 | 10.0 |
| 2004 | 250 | 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 40 | 3.5 |
| 2005 | 1,043 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 100 | 12.0 |
| 2006 | 1,119 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 93 | 12.0 |
| 2007 | 637 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 79 | 6.7 |
| 2008 | 1,270 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 96 | 12.6 |
| 2009 | 1,437 | 9th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 141 | 12.0 |
| 2010 | 2,638 | 14th lowest of 15 · 208% of median | 135 | 18.0 |
| 2012 | 1,000 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 109 | 7.5 |
| 2014 | 1,646 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 84 | 15.0 |
| 2015 | 1,672 | 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 102 | 16.4 |
| 2016 | 1,507 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 62 | 15.0 |
| 2018 | 1,571 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 136 | 7.7 |
| 2019 | 2,844 | 15th lowest of 15 · 224% of median | 129 | 20.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+92 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5359 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2019 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.