Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NAVAJO MILL & IRG DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7700563 · 1 · NAVAJO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:54 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 1889-04-01 — 21st 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: FITZHUGH DITCH (1888-06-21). Immediately behind: EAKLOR DITCH (1889-05-27).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14336.0 | 1889-04-01 | 1897-07-01 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #42 |
| 17390.0 | 1897-08-11 | 1912-11-13 | 1.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #135 |
| 41016.23496 | 1914-05-01 | 1968-12-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 68-17 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
90CW0069, CA0308, CA0073.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
90CW0069 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 3 | 1912-11-13 | O, S |
CA0073 | 1 | 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 602 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 160 AF — 27% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 810 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | — | 170 | 4.6 |
| 2012 | 336 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 147 | 3.9 |
| 2013 | 604 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 120 | 4.8 |
| 2014 | 173 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | — | 170 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 378 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | — | 157 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 626 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 183 | 2.9 |
| 2017 | 650 | 11th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 171 | 3.1 |
| 2018 | 896 | 14th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | — | 193 | 4.6 |
| 2019 | 602 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 170 | 3.5 |
| 2020 | 387 | 6th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | — | 156 | 4.0 |
| 2021 | 819 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | — | 178 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 506 | 7th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | — | 156 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 337 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 117 | 4.7 |
| 2024 | 1,315 | 15th lowest of 15 · 218% of median | — | 99 | 37.8 |
| 2025 | 160 | 1st lowest of 15 · 27% of median | — | 136 | 0.9 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 9853 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 77% of the irrigation seasons in 1966-2025 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.