Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARTIN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4701029 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:55 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 1888-06-14 — 172nd 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: BOONE DITCH (1888-06-14). Immediately behind: MARTIN DITCH ALT PT (1888-06-14).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14045.0 | 1888-06-14 | 1892-09-19 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 140(128) |
| 14410.0 | 1889-06-14 | 1892-09-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 191(171) |
| 15603.0 | 1892-09-19 | 1908-07-01 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 260 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1783, CA0922, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1783 | 1 | 1908-07-01 | O |
CA0922 | 1 | 1892-09-19 | O |
09/22/1892 | 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 516 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 547 AF — 106% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 552 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 102 | 7.0 |
| 2007 | 453 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 48 | 7.0 |
| 2008 | 541 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 62 | 6.0 |
| 2009 | 516 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 63 | 7.0 |
| 2010 | 445 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 61 | 7.0 |
| 2013 | 24 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 6 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 368 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 56 | 3.5 |
| 2015 | 476 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 31 | 8.0 |
| 2016 | 452 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 155 | 4.0 |
| 2017 | 1,249 | 15th lowest of 15 · 242% of median | 80 | 9.1 |
| 2018 | 968 | 14th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 62 | 8.0 |
| 2019 | 585 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 30 | 10.5 |
| 2020 | 651 | 13th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 69 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 273 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 35 | 4.1 |
| 2025 | 547 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 39 | 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2612 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2025 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.