Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAILEY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200522 · 1 · SALT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 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 1894-10-01 — 126th most senior of the 2166 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: BIG CREEK RESERVOIR NO 5 (1894-08-13). Immediately behind: CRANE DITCH (1894-10-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18749.16345 | 1894-10-01 | 1905-10-14 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.23594 | 1914-08-07 | 1941-07-25 | 2.92 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 403 |
| 30895.29644 | 1931-03-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | DOM |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA5812, CA1222.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA1222 | 1 | 1905-10-14 | 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 96 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 96 AF — 100% of that, and 8th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 262 | 11th lowest of 15 · 273% of median | — | 48 | 4.0 |
| 2006 | 79 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 37 | 1.8 |
| 2007 | 220 | 10th lowest of 15 · 229% of median | — | 111 | 2.8 |
| 2008 | 452 | 14th lowest of 15 · 471% of median | — | 170 | 4.0 |
| 2009 | 524 | 15th lowest of 15 · 546% of median | — | 348 | 2.0 |
| 2010 | 392 | 13th lowest of 15 · 408% of median | — | 283 | 1.6 |
| 2011 | 263 | 12th lowest of 15 · 274% of median | — | 163 | 1.8 |
| 2012 | 61 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | — | 108 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 106 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | — | 81 | 2.3 |
| 2019 | 31 | 1st lowest of 15 · 32% of median | — | 32 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 52 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | — | 45 | 0.8 |
| 2021 | 39 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | — | 32 | 0.7 |
| 2022 | 61 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | — | 64 | 0.5 |
| 2023 | 52 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | — | 94 | 0.4 |
| 2024 | 96 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 84 | 0.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-11 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.037).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4584 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.