Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FELIX BORGHI DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800633 · 1 · ELK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:36 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 1890-05-15 — 126th most senior of the 3097 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: TRULL MORIN DITCH HG 2 (1890-05-01). Immediately behind: MARTIN DITCH (1890-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14745.0 | 1890-05-15 | 1892-09-22 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMALL | (84)95 |
| 29573.15289 | 1891-11-10 | 1931-04-13 | 1.62 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMALL | 102AA |
| 45290.14745 | 1890-05-15 | 1974-12-31 | 11.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMALL | |
| 53325.53081 | 1995-05-01 | 1996-12-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISSTK |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
96CW0048, W0750-74, W0754-74, 04/13/1931, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0048 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
W0750-74 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
W0754-74 | 4 | 1931-04-13 | O, S |
04/13/1931 | 1 | 1931-04-13 | S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | 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 1,120 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 1,124 AF — 100% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 4,557 | 15th lowest of 15 · 407% of median | 365 | 10.0 |
| 1992 | 3,265 | 14th lowest of 15 · 292% of median | 365 | 11.5 |
| 1993 | 928 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 365 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 1,370 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 304 | 5.0 |
| 1995 | 60 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 61 | 0.5 |
| 1996 | 962 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 365 | 6.5 |
| 1997 | 1,079 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 365 | 6.5 |
| 1998 | 2,350 | 13th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 365 | 8.0 |
| 1999 | 1,001 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 365 | 4.8 |
| 2000 | 925 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 366 | 5.4 |
| 2001 | 1,120 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 4.5 |
| 2002 | 1,263 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 365 | 6.0 |
| 2003 | 684 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 331 | 5.0 |
| 2004 | 1,150 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 366 | 3.5 |
| 2005 | 1,124 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 295 | 5.5 |
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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9929 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 65% of the irrigation seasons in 1934-2005 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.