Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOME SUPPLY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5400532 · 1 · LITTLE SNAKE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:23 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1896-04-12 — 132nd most senior of the 724 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: ST LOUIS DITCH (1893-04-01). Immediately behind: ANDERSON D GRIEVE HEADGT (1896-04-27).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24948.16904 | 1896-04-12 | 1918-06-17 | 2.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 23C |
| 37433.19875 | 1904-06-01 | 1964-06-23 | 11.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 6, 6A |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1598, CA1168.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1598 | 2 | 1964-06-23 | S |
CA1168 | 1 | 1918-06-17 | S |
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 849 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 546 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 61 | 12.9 |
| 2009 | 2,373 | 15th lowest of 15 · 280% of median | 124 | 15.5 |
| 2010 | 2,237 | 13th lowest of 15 · 264% of median | 138 | 12.0 |
| 2011 | 993 | 9th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 44 | 13.1 |
| 2012 | 1,938 | 12th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 159 | 8.0 |
| 2013 | 2,360 | 14th lowest of 15 · 278% of median | 146 | 12.0 |
| 2014 | 849 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 75 | 8.0 |
| 2015 | 1,390 | 10th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 111 | 13.0 |
| 2016 | 610 | 7th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 47 | 6.8 |
| 2017 | 536 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 80 | 3.4 |
| 2019 | 1,750 | 11th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 155 | 5.7 |
| 2020 | 576 | 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 94 | 3.1 |
| 2021 | 239 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 138 | 0.9 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-104 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 6230 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1936-2025 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.