Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WAGNER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6000794 · 1 · SOUTH FORK SAN MIGUEL RI · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:04 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 1896-06-16 — 126th most senior of the 2893 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: AGRICULTURAL DITCH (1896-06-16). Immediately behind: ALDASORO DITCH (1896-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16969.0 | 1896-06-16 | 1911-06-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECFISDOMSTKAUGPWRWLD | 75 |
| 17014.0 | 1896-07-31 | 1911-06-03 | 0.45 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNCOMDOMSTKAUGPWR | 78 |
| 18046.0 | 1899-05-29 | 1911-06-03 | 6.25 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNCOMDOMSTKAUG | 89 |
| 31206.0 | 1935-06-10 | 1939-11-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNCOMDOMSTKAUGPWR | 339 |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
98CW0171, W1561, CA1627, 98CW0247, 95CW0199, 93CW0245, 80CW0405.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0171 | 5 | 1939-11-01 | O, S |
W1561 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | O |
CA1627 | 1 | 1911-06-03 | O |
98CW0247 | 1 | 1911-06-03 | O |
95CW0199 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | O |
93CW0245 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | O |
80CW0405 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | 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 651 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 970 AF — 149% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 571 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 152 | 8.6 |
| 2011 | 778 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 162 | 8.6 |
| 2012 | 627 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 184 | 4.1 |
| 2013 | 651 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 175 | 5.1 |
| 2014 | 527 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 175 | 7.2 |
| 2015 | 578 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 195 | 7.0 |
| 2016 | 1,472 | 15th lowest of 15 · 226% of median | 161 | 12.0 |
| 2017 | 1,027 | 14th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 155 | 12.3 |
| 2018 | 485 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 209 | 4.9 |
| 2019 | 751 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 146 | 10.2 |
| 2020 | 666 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 206 | 5.2 |
| 2021 | 546 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 176 | 4.1 |
| 2022 | 359 | 1st lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 172 | 5.1 |
| 2023 | 677 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 153 | 7.6 |
| 2024 | 970 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 171 | 7.4 |
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 | 4199 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2024 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.