Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTH MIDWAY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6100517 · 1 · WEST PARADOX CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:24 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 1885-03-19 — 9th most senior of the 166 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: SWAIN DITCH (1884-01-07). Immediately behind: ROBINSON DITCH (1886-09-30).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12862.0 | 1885-03-19 | 1892-02-01 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13 |
| 13019.0 | 1885-08-23 | 1892-02-01 | 0.39 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14 |
| 14931.0 | 1890-11-17 | 1892-02-01 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 19 |
| 22366.21641 | 1909-04-02 | 1926-01-19 | 2.57 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 27 |
| 22366.21857 | 1909-11-04 | 1926-01-19 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 31 |
| 22718.0 | 1912-03-14 | 1926-01-19 | 15.33 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 35 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W2183, CA4143, CA4142, CA3261, W3527.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2183 | 1 | 1926-01-19 | S |
CA4143 | 3 | 1926-01-19 | O, S |
CA4142 | 2 | 1926-01-19 | O, S |
CA3261 | 1 | 1926-01-19 | S |
W3527 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | 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 645 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 488 AF — 76% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 741 | 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 221 | 3.1 |
| 2012 | 441 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 209 | 2.6 |
| 2013 | 532 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 218 | 2.1 |
| 2014 | 434 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 175 | 2.5 |
| 2015 | 454 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 193 | 2.1 |
| 2016 | 826 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 199 | 5.0 |
| 2017 | 670 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 188 | 8.1 |
| 2018 | 375 | 1st lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 205 | 7.0 |
| 2019 | 1,191 | 15th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 196 | 9.0 |
| 2020 | 645 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 271 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 922 | 12th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 361 | 4.0 |
| 2022 | 473 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 249 | 3.0 |
| 2023 | 1,028 | 13th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 207 | 5.0 |
| 2024 | 1,075 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 214 | 3.5 |
| 2025 | 488 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 178 | 3.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 21750 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.