Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SIMMONS NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7000591 · 1 · ROAN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:42 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 1915-09-18 — 82nd most senior of the 519 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: KREPS DITCH AND LATERAL (1912-09-25). Immediately behind: MEADOWS DITCH (1916-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27132.24001 | 1915-09-18 | 1937-01-11 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 27132.27029 | 1924-01-02 | 1937-01-11 | 1.14 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 179 |
| 27132.27059 | 1924-02-01 | 1937-01-11 | 2.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181C |
| 27132.27059 | 1924-02-01 | 1937-01-11 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181D |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0441, CA3102.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0441 | 2 | 1937-01-11 | S |
CA3102 | 2 | 1937-01-11 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 84 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 126 AF — 150% of that, and 11th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1971 | 89 | 8th lowest of 14 · 106% of median | 16 | 3.0 |
| 1973 | 22 | 5th lowest of 14 · 26% of median | 12 | 1.0 |
| 1975 | 100 | 9th lowest of 14 · 119% of median | 11 | 5.0 |
| 1976 | 64 | 6th lowest of 14 · 76% of median | 52 | 1.5 |
| 1987 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1989 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.2 |
| 1990 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2001 | 9 | 4th lowest of 14 · 11% of median | 4 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 1,062 | 14th lowest of 14 · 1264% of median | 149 | 4.5 |
| 2012 | 476 | 13th lowest of 14 · 567% of median | 161 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 79 | 7th lowest of 14 · 94% of median | 34 | 1.5 |
| 2014 | 112 | 10th lowest of 14 · 133% of median | 40 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 257 | 12th lowest of 14 · 306% of median | 161 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 126 | 11th lowest of 14 · 150% of median | 77 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 721 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 7% of the irrigation seasons in 1971-2017 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.