Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAKER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6200522 · 1 · LAKE FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:08 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 1906-05-11 — 195th most senior of the 1980 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: B AND B DITCH (1906-05-11). Immediately behind: BAKER NO 2 DITCH (1906-05-11).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23138.20584 | 1906-05-11 | 1925-07-11 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 133 |
| 33348.27585 | 1925-07-11 | 1960-03-30 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 354 |
| 34833.0 | 1945-05-15 | 1960-03-30 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 374 |
| 35276.0 | 1946-08-01 | 1960-03-30 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | COMPWR | 379, 380 |
| 37836.0 | 1953-08-04 | 1960-03-30 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISPWR | 417 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
94CW0241, CA6981, CA3516.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0241 | 2 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA6981 | 5 | 1960-03-30 | S |
CA3516 | 1 | 1925-07-11 | 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 412 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 64 AF — 16% of that, and 2nd 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 | 555 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 141 | 2.1 |
| 2011 | 721 | 14th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 168 | 2.8 |
| 2012 | 555 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 178 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 297 | 6th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 103 | 2.3 |
| 2014 | 451 | 11th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 167 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 412 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 165 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 407 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 110 | 2.0 |
| 2018 | 148 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 111 | 0.8 |
| 2019 | 788 | 15th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 165 | 7.5 |
| 2020 | 433 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 149 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 29 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 55 | 0.3 |
| 2022 | 180 | 4th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 138 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 424 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 176 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 218 | 5th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 101 | 1.6 |
| 2025 | 64 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 58 | 1.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-30 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.020).
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4826 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2025 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.