Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RUBY AND LEE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200860 · 1 · BIG SALT WASH · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:10 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 1884-08-18 — 6th 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: WILLIAMS IRRIGATING D (1884-08-08). Immediately behind: UPPER SALT WASH DITCH (1884-08-18).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12649.0 | 1884-08-18 | 1890-02-07 | 1.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 25 |
| 22995.21287 | 1908-04-13 | 1916-06-01 | 9.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 25 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2635, 84CW0218, 13CW3050.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2635 | 2 | 1916-06-01 | S |
84CW0218 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | S |
13CW3050 | 1 | 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 210 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 210 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 123 | 6th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 34 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 1,051 | 14th lowest of 15 · 500% of median | 203 | 8.5 |
| 1998 | 1,301 | 15th lowest of 15 · 620% of median | 149 | 12.0 |
| 1999 | 166 | 7th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 72 | 6.0 |
| 2000 | 383 | 10th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 217 | 3.0 |
| 2001 | 611 | 12th lowest of 15 · 291% of median | 166 | 5.0 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 9 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2004 | 79 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 72 | 1.5 |
| 2005 | 795 | 13th lowest of 15 · 379% of median | 84 | 7.0 |
| 2006 | 89 | 4th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 111 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 122 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 93 | 3.0 |
| 2008 | 223 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 86 | 2.5 |
| 2011 | 484 | 11th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 125 | 3.0 |
| 2015 | 210 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 56 | 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 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 | 1948 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1994-2015 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.