Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SOUTH SIDE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7700579 · 1 · NAVAJO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:14 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 1915-06-15 — 33rd 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: L A SAPPINGTON DITCH (1913-04-25). Immediately behind: UPPER NAVAJO DITCH (1885-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23906.0 | 1915-06-15 | 1928-06-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | #208 |
| 28645.23906 | 1915-06-15 | 1962-04-19 | 19.1 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | #270 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0308, 96CW0020.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308 | 2 | 1962-04-19 | S |
96CW0020 | 4 | 1962-04-19 | S |
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 1,962 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 348 AF — 18% of that, and 1st 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 | 1,274 | 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 85 | 14.4 |
| 2012 | 3,400 | 13th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 164 | 18.9 |
| 2013 | 2,543 | 10th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 100 | 18.6 |
| 2014 | 1,624 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 149 | 9.2 |
| 2015 | 1,193 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 150 | 7.0 |
| 2016 | 681 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 87 | 10.0 |
| 2017 | 1,962 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 149 | 18.8 |
| 2018 | 2,859 | 11th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 190 | 22.9 |
| 2019 | 4,375 | 15th lowest of 15 · 223% of median | 171 | 25.1 |
| 2020 | 3,252 | 12th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 178 | 16.9 |
| 2021 | 3,838 | 14th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 178 | 24.0 |
| 2022 | 2,533 | 9th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 105 | 20.3 |
| 2023 | 1,456 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 158 | 8.5 |
| 2024 | 1,347 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 132 | 8.5 |
| 2025 | 348 | 1st lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 199 | 1.3 |
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 | 7707 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 59% 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.