Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COLE NO 1 DITCH (SOUTH BANK)
Structure dossier · WDID 5100587 · 1 · BATTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:12 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 1884-06-30 — 39th most senior of the 2208 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: HOME DITCH (1884-06-20). Immediately behind: SMITH DITCH (1884-09-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12600.0 | 1884-06-30 | 1906-08-11 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 23454.20228 | 1905-05-20 | 1915-03-18 | 0.575 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 285 |
| 30870.20605 | 1906-06-01 | 1937-11-05 | 2.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 384 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0657, CA0259, CA0112.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0657 | 2 | 1937-11-05 | S |
CA0259 | 1 | 1915-03-18 | S |
CA0112 | 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 423 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 155 AF — 37% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 511 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 118 | 5.1 |
| 2011 | 503 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 136 | 4.8 |
| 2012 | 554 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 175 | 5.1 |
| 2013 | 219 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 83 | 3.5 |
| 2014 | 481 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 64 | 8.0 |
| 2015 | 564 | 15th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 87 | 5.7 |
| 2016 | 519 | 12th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 148 | 6.0 |
| 2017 | 545 | 13th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 97 | 10.0 |
| 2018 | 423 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 133 | 5.8 |
| 2019 | 365 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 126 | 5.1 |
| 2020 | 276 | 6th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 103 | 4.0 |
| 2021 | 186 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 85 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 220 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 133 | 1.8 |
| 2023 | 220 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 160 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 155 | 1st lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 127 | 2.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-29 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.006).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4617 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.