Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RAGAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4900526 · 1 · SOUTH FORK REPUBLICAN RI · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:47 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1891-04-03 — 12th most senior of the 39 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: FULLER DITCH (1890-11-23). Immediately behind: RAGAN DITCH ALT PT 1-24371-F (1891-04-03).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15068.0 | 1891-04-03 | 1893-12-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 16072.0 | 1894-01-01 | 1938-09-08 | 6.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 23010.0 | 1912-12-31 | 1938-09-08 | 8.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2985, CA18162.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2985 | 2 | 1938-09-08 | S |
CA18162 | 1 | 1893-12-28 | 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 363 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2008, came in at 65 AF — 18% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 696 | 12th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 141 | 3.8 |
| 1993 | 277 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 123 | 2.4 |
| 1994 | 485 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 137 | 5.6 |
| 1995 | 384 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 97 | 6.4 |
| 1996 | 332 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 117 | 3.4 |
| 1997 | 232 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 65 | 3.2 |
| 2000 | 1,204 | 15th lowest of 15 · 332% of median | 145 | 5.0 |
| 2001 | 214 | 4th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 69 | 2.0 |
| 2002 | 881 | 14th lowest of 15 · 243% of median | 150 | 3.0 |
| 2003 | 503 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 153 | 2.4 |
| 2004 | 709 | 13th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 183 | 2.9 |
| 2005 | 178 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 37 | 3.1 |
| 2006 | 363 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 115 | 2.7 |
| 2007 | 149 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 114 | 2.5 |
| 2008 | 65 | 1st lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 82 | 0.8 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2890 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2008 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.