Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ARCHULETA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7700500 · 1 · NAVAJO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:26 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1885-06-21 — 17th most senior of the 187 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: MIDLAND DITCH (1884-06-30). Immediately behind: ARCHULETA DITCH AP (1885-06-21).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12956.0 | 1885-06-21 | 1897-07-01 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTK | #17 |
| 14392.0 | 1889-05-27 | 1897-07-01 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMFISDOMSTKOTH | #45, Sp#1 |
| 16587.0 | 1895-05-31 | 1897-07-01 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTK | #87 |
| 16953.0 | 1896-05-31 | 1897-07-01 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTK | #95 |
| 17380.0 | 1897-08-01 | 1912-11-13 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTK | #130 |
| 42996.0 | 1967-09-20 | 1968-12-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 68-328 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA0308-D, W1048, W1047, CA0308, CA0073.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
W1048 | 1 | 1912-11-13 | O |
W1047 | 1 | 1912-11-13 | O |
CA0308 | 2 | 1912-11-13 | O, S |
CA0073 | 4 | 1897-07-01 | 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 594 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 324 AF — 54% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 66 | 1st lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 50 | 1.4 |
| 2012 | 82 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 74 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 870 | 10th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 72 | 8.9 |
| 2014 | 308 | 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 85 | 3.4 |
| 2015 | 275 | 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 73 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 244 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 71 | 3.2 |
| 2017 | 417 | 7th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 127 | 3.0 |
| 2018 | 1,010 | 11th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 152 | 5.6 |
| 2019 | 821 | 9th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 116 | 6.2 |
| 2020 | 594 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 158 | 4.0 |
| 2021 | 1,185 | 12th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 193 | 5.3 |
| 2022 | 1,382 | 13th lowest of 15 · 233% of median | 183 | 7.6 |
| 2023 | 2,303 | 15th lowest of 15 · 388% of median | 129 | 12.0 |
| 2024 | 1,916 | 14th lowest of 15 · 323% of median | 104 | 12.0 |
| 2025 | 324 | 6th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 103 | 1.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+112 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3004 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.