Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GRAPEVINE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200647 · 1 · RAPID CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:52 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 1885-01-13 — 11th 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: MASON EDDY DITCH (1884-11-30). Immediately behind: PALISADE TOWN PL EXT(CW) (1885-01-13).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12797.0 | 1885-01-13 | 1890-02-07 | 1.44 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOM | 28 |
| 25210.20939 | 1907-05-01 | 1919-02-14 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 345 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
CA13368, 91CW0228, CA3460, CA4962, CA1707, CA0273.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA13368 | 1 | 1972-04-13 | S |
91CW0228 | 1 | 1972-04-13 | S |
CA3460 | 1 | 1919-02-14 | S |
CA4962 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA1707 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | 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 223 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 223 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 649 | 13th lowest of 15 · 291% of median | — | 210 | 2.1 |
| 2006 | 464 | 12th lowest of 15 · 208% of median | 32 | 181 | 2.5 |
| 2007 | 345 | 9th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 14 | 152 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 369 | 11th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 17 | 189 | 2.2 |
| 2009 | 789 | 14th lowest of 15 · 354% of median | — | 200 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 134 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | — | 174 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 1,001 | 15th lowest of 15 · 449% of median | — | 226 | 3.4 |
| 2015 | 212 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 217 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 360 | 10th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | — | 257 | 0.9 |
| 2017 | 207 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 170 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 58 | 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median | — | 66 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 84 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | — | 93 | 0.6 |
| 2022 | 159 | 5th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | — | 194 | 1.4 |
| 2023 | 135 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | — | 159 | 0.4 |
| 2024 | 223 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 164 | 1.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-20 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5599 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1982-2024 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.