Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WHITE DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1100559 · 1 · SOUTH ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:01 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 1872-05-01 — 86th 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: WHITE DITCH NO 3 (1872-05-01). Immediately behind: RIVERSIDE-ALLEN DITCH (1872-11-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8157.0 | 1872-05-01 | 1890-06-19 | 0.62 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 38 |
| 9952.0 | 1877-03-31 | 1890-06-19 | 0.38 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62 |
| 25950.20513 | 1906-03-01 | 1921-04-05 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2664, CA1127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2664 | 1 | 1921-04-05 | S |
CA1127 | 4 | 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 294 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 235 AF — 80% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 276 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 154 | 1.0 |
| 2009 | 217 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 136 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 218 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 164 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 316 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 164 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 211 | 1st lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 156 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 300 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 160 | 2.7 |
| 2014 | 329 | 14th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 171 | 1.6 |
| 2015 | 243 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 148 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 294 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 167 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 310 | 12th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 166 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 305 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 186 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 350 | 15th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 184 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 268 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 150 | 1.0 |
| 2021 | 308 | 11th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 172 | 1.3 |
| 2023 | 235 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 111 | 1.5 |
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 | 8830 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2023 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.