Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PERKINS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0400580 · 1 · BUCKHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1874-06-15 — 38th most senior of the 1296 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: KIRCHNER DITCH (1874-06-01). Immediately behind: BOULDER LARIMER CO IRR MFG D (1875-06-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8932.0 | 1874-06-15 | 1883-05-28 | 2.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 10758.0 | 1879-06-15 | 1883-05-28 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 11483.0 | 1881-06-09 | 1883-05-28 | 4.472 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
05/28/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05/28/1883 | 3 | 1883-05-28 | 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 117 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 27 AF — 23% of that, and 2nd 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 | 345 | 13th lowest of 15 · 295% of median | 72 | 5.0 |
| 1997 | 260 | 12th lowest of 15 · 222% of median | 48 | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 455 | 15th lowest of 15 · 389% of median | 98 | 12.0 |
| 1999 | 407 | 14th lowest of 15 · 348% of median | 69 | 4.2 |
| 2000 | 97 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 26 | 3.1 |
| 2003 | 86 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 27 | 3.9 |
| 2004 | 187 | 10th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 46 | 3.5 |
| 2005 | 210 | 11th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 38 | 4.1 |
| 2006 | 59 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 23 | 1.9 |
| 2009 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 9 | 0.6 |
| 2011 | 117 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 78 | 2.2 |
| 2015 | 102 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 43 | 1.8 |
| 2016 | 33 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 12 | 2.7 |
| 2019 | 166 | 9th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 80 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 27 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 37 | 0.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-12 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.010).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5477 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 36% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2020 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.