Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOUCK 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0600534 · DITCH · BOULDER 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 (96d5528) — 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: no administrative call record for this basin.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1861-04-01 — 45th most senior of the 1867 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: GODDING DAILEY PLUMB D (1861-03-01). Immediately behind: BOULDER WELD CTY DITCH (1861-06-01).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 27.9, it is 61st of 78 down the reach. Immediately upstream: WILLIAMS RES NO 1. Immediately downstream: DELEHANT DITCH.
Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4109.0 | 1861-04-01 | 1882-06-02 | 379.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRRECFISAUGWLD | |
| 4109.0 | 1861-04-01 | 1882-06-02 | 3.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISAUGWLD |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1278, 07CW0257.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1278 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | O |
07CW0257 | 3 | 1882-06-02 | 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 436 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2002, came in at 260 AF — 60% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 321 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 29 | 6.0 |
| 1989 | 708 | 13th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 53 | 7.0 |
| 1990 | 736 | 14th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 56 | 7.0 |
| 1991 | 337 | 7th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 32 | 7.0 |
| 1992 | 666 | 12th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 59 | 6.0 |
| 1993 | 436 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 42 | 7.0 |
| 1994 | 500 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 45 | 6.0 |
| 1995 | 744 | 15th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 56 | 7.0 |
| 1996 | 167 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 31 | 3.0 |
| 1997 | 125 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 23 | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 327 | 6th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 58 | 3.0 |
| 1999 | 220 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 40 | 3.0 |
| 2000 | 583 | 11th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 85 | 7.0 |
| 2001 | 519 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 62 | 5.0 |
| 2002 | 260 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 38 | 7.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, IDAHO CREEK DIVERSION FROM BOULDER CREEK: no clear flow trend.
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | stale | 4422 measured days, but newest is 8828 day(s) before the data's end (target 450) |
| record continuity | sparse | 40% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2002 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.