Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RITSCHARD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5000638 · 1 · MUDDY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1886-05-31 — 26th most senior of the 360 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: CLIFF DITCH (1886-05-31). Immediately behind: BECKER NO 5 DITCH (1887-04-21).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13300.0 | 1886-05-31 | 1906-08-11 | 2.125 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 24 |
| 32335.1327 | 1886-05-01 | 1941-07-17 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 169 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0764, CA0113.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0764 | 1 | 1941-07-17 | S |
CA0113 | 1 | 1906-08-11 | 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 464 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 450 AF — 97% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 546 | 13th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 65 | 6.8 |
| 2011 | 657 | 15th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 55 | 8.2 |
| 2012 | 296 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 52 | 5.0 |
| 2013 | 503 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 57 | 6.3 |
| 2014 | 548 | 14th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 53 | 6.9 |
| 2015 | 466 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 54 | 5.2 |
| 2016 | 498 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 45 | 6.7 |
| 2017 | 464 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 46 | 7.0 |
| 2018 | 267 | 1st lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 56 | 4.0 |
| 2019 | 436 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 50 | 6.0 |
| 2020 | 484 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 62 | 6.0 |
| 2021 | 284 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 59 | 4.5 |
| 2022 | 357 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 59 | 5.3 |
| 2023 | 375 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 62 | 5.0 |
| 2024 | 450 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 63 | 6.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-13 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3235 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2024 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.