Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OSTRANDER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100826 · 1 · FRASER RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:02 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 1885-04-30 — 46th 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: MCNERNY DITCH (1884-12-31). Immediately behind: TRAIL CREEK DITCH (1885-06-07).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12904.0 | 1885-04-30 | 1906-08-11 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECDOMAUG | 32 |
| 14245.0 | 1888-12-31 | 1906-08-11 | 3.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECDOMAUG | 67 |
| 18627.0 | 1900-12-31 | 1906-08-11 | 3.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECDOMAUG | 117 |
| 34241.29417 | 1930-07-17 | 1952-11-07 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 482 |
Legal record & documents
17 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W1881, CA0814, CA0112.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1881 | 10 | 1952-11-07 | O, S |
CA0814 | 2 | 1952-11-07 | S |
CA0112 | 5 | 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 753 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 710 AF — 94% of that, and 6th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 580 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | — | 54 | 7.0 |
| 2011 | 198 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | — | 14 | 10.0 |
| 2012 | 947 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | — | 116 | 6.0 |
| 2013 | 699 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 87 | 8.0 |
| 2014 | 95 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | — | 20 | 5.0 |
| 2015 | 4,454 | 15th lowest of 15 · 592% of median | 4,225 | 214 | 18.0 |
| 2016 | 781 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 100 | 20.0 |
| 2017 | 721 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | — | 55 | 10.0 |
| 2018 | 1,043 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | — | 137 | 8.0 |
| 2019 | 954 | 13th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | — | 78 | 10.0 |
| 2020 | 677 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 71 | 8.0 |
| 2021 | 777 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 88 | 10.0 |
| 2022 | 913 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | — | 80 | 11.2 |
| 2023 | 753 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 70 | 9.3 |
| 2024 | 710 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 52 | 10.0 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3369 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% 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.