Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ROUFF NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5600571 · 1 · TALAMANTES CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:12 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 1886-09-15 — 15th most senior of the 909 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: BASSETT RESERVOIR (1883-05-25). Immediately behind: ROUFF NO 2 DITCH (1886-09-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13407.0 | 1886-09-15 | 1894-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 4 |
| 13624.0 | 1887-04-20 | 1894-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 5 |
| 13710.0 | 1887-07-15 | 1894-09-22 | 0.83 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTKALL | 6 |
| 44925.22035 | 1910-05-01 | 1973-12-31 | 5.17 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTKALL |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W0569-73, W0568-73, 08CW0089, 18CW3013, 09/22/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0569-73 | 3 | 1973-12-31 | O, S |
W0568-73 | 2 | 1973-12-31 | O, S |
08CW0089 | 8 | 1973-12-31 | O, S |
18CW3013 | 1 | 1894-09-22 | O |
09/22/1894 | 1 | 1894-09-22 | 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 51 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 8 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 17 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 51 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 28 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 521 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1022% of median | 77 | 3.8 |
| 2012 | 82 | 9th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 28 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 38 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 44 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 37 | 6th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 31 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 250 | 13th lowest of 15 · 490% of median | 128 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 282 | 14th lowest of 15 · 553% of median | 118 | 2.1 |
| 2019 | 203 | 12th lowest of 15 · 398% of median | 78 | 2.6 |
| 2020 | 14 | 4th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 29 | 1.2 |
| 2021 | 35 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 31 | 1.4 |
| 2022 | 130 | 10th lowest of 15 · 255% of median | 39 | 3.1 |
| 2023 | 183 | 11th lowest of 15 · 359% of median | 70 | 2.5 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 15 | 0.0 |
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 | 2911 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.