Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MIDLAND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7700559 · 1 · LITTLE NAVAJO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:21 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 1884-06-30 — 16th 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: ELMER DITCH NO 2 (1882-12-31). Immediately behind: ARCHULETA DITCH (1885-06-21).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12600.0 | 1884-06-30 | 1897-07-01 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #15 |
| 13708.0 | 1887-07-13 | 1897-07-01 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #32 |
| 14917.0 | 1890-11-03 | 1897-07-01 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #57 |
| 17349.16588 | 1895-06-01 | 1912-11-13 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #133 |
| 41016.29371 | 1930-06-01 | 1968-12-19 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 68-47 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0308-D, CA0308, CA0073.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 4 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1912-11-13 | S |
CA0073 | 3 | 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 327 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 583 AF — 178% of that, and 11th 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 | 585 | 12th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 161 | 7.1 |
| 2012 | 689 | 13th lowest of 15 · 211% of median | 156 | 6.5 |
| 2013 | 837 | 14th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 110 | 12.6 |
| 2014 | 327 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 147 | 4.0 |
| 2015 | 208 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 116 | 2.6 |
| 2016 | 179 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 144 | 1.6 |
| 2017 | 151 | 1st lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 132 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 473 | 10th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 186 | 4.0 |
| 2019 | 424 | 9th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 130 | 3.5 |
| 2020 | 191 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 104 | 2.5 |
| 2021 | 1,008 | 15th lowest of 15 · 308% of median | 178 | 4.5 |
| 2022 | 259 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 89 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 271 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 93 | 1.5 |
| 2024 | 220 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 94 | 1.6 |
| 2025 | 583 | 11th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 162 | 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9571 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 73% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.