Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOWELL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0600536 · 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 1859-12-01 — 26th 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: 0602125 (1859-11-15). Immediately behind: HOWARD DITCH (1860-04-01).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 23.4, it is 45th of 78 down the reach. Immediately upstream: PANAMA RES 1. Immediately downstream: WITTEMYER POND NO 4.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3622.0 | 1859-12-01 | 1882-06-02 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 61357.0 | 2017-12-27 | 2017-12-31 | 0.0 | 52.0 | C | STOFISWLD |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
16CW3160, 97CW0151, 79CW0363, CA1302, CA10324.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
16CW3160 | 2 | 2017-12-31 | S |
97CW0151 | 2 | 1979-12-31 | S |
79CW0363 | 2 | 1979-12-31 | S |
CA1302 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | O |
CA10324 | 1 | 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 390 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 360 AF — 92% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 652 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 120 | 6.0 |
| 2008 | 544 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 81 | 9.0 |
| 2009 | 390 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 76 | 5.0 |
| 2010 | 389 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 66 | 5.1 |
| 2011 | 390 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 502 | 11th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 120 | 3.5 |
| 2013 | 472 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 107 | 3.1 |
| 2014 | 146 | 1st lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 35 | 3.9 |
| 2016 | 518 | 12th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 72 | 4.7 |
| 2017 | 326 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 49 | 6.3 |
| 2018 | 359 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 62 | 5.0 |
| 2022 | 164 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 35 | 3.6 |
| 2023 | 259 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 59 | 6.6 |
| 2024 | 729 | 15th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 115 | 6.3 |
| 2025 | 360 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 58 | 4.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, PANAMA RESERVOIR INLET: no clear flow trend.
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 | current | 4243 measured days, newest 337 day(s) before the data's end (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.