Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STRAWBERRY DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 5100918 · 1 · STRAWBERRY CREEK · 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 1891-05-20 — 107th 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: DEBERARD DITCH (STRAWBERRY CREEK) (1891-05-19). Immediately behind: JONES HIGHLINE DITCH (1891-05-29).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15115.0 | 1891-05-20 | 1906-08-11 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 89 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W1881, CA0112.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1881 | 2 | 1906-08-11 | O |
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 239 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1996, came in at 194 AF — 81% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1982 | 223 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 46 | 2.6 |
| 1983 | 239 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38 | 3.2 |
| 1984 | 164 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 34 | 2.5 |
| 1985 | 352 | 11th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 72 | 2.5 |
| 1986 | 352 | 11th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 72 | 2.5 |
| 1987 | 378 | 15th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 79 | 4.3 |
| 1988 | 199 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 51 | 3.5 |
| 1989 | 47 | 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 53 | 1.4 |
| 1990 | 239 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 2.8 |
| 1991 | 222 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 57 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 363 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 62 | 3.0 |
| 1993 | 298 | 9th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 76 | 2.0 |
| 1994 | 369 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 63 | 3.0 |
| 1995 | 321 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 55 | 3.0 |
| 1996 | 194 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 50 | 2.0 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1281 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-1996 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.