Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HELENA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100535 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:09 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 1882-03-01 — 177th most senior of the 1489 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: SPRING DITCH (1882-01-31). Immediately behind: NORTH FORK DITCH (1882-03-13).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11748.0 | 1882-03-01 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 99 |
| 13480.0 | 1886-11-27 | 1890-06-19 | 19.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 153 |
| 22888.15341 | 1892-01-01 | 1913-07-14 | 16.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 196 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4683, CA1127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4683 | 1 | 1913-07-14 | S |
CA1127 | 2 | 1890-06-19 | 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 2,257 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 1,644 AF — 73% 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 | 1,731 | 7th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 229 | 12.1 |
| 2008 | 2,414 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 366 | 11.6 |
| 2009 | 1,488 | 4th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 306 | 12.4 |
| 2010 | 2,488 | 12th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 113 | 20.0 |
| 2011 | 2,406 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 144 | 20.0 |
| 2012 | 129 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 81 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 678 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 100 | 18.4 |
| 2014 | 2,867 | 14th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 166 | 14.0 |
| 2015 | 2,257 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 104 | 17.0 |
| 2016 | 2,806 | 13th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 147 | 18.6 |
| 2017 | 4,331 | 15th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 194 | 18.0 |
| 2018 | 1,570 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 158 | 11.5 |
| 2019 | 2,267 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 126 | 14.0 |
| 2020 | 764 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 101 | 10.3 |
| 2021 | 1,644 | 6th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 115 | 15.5 |
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 (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 | 8247 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2021 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.