Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MONUMENT LAKE DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1900623 · 1 · BROWN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:21 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 1861-05-31 — 2nd most senior of the 735 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: NORTH LAKE INLET (1861-05-31). Immediately behind: BACA IRRIGATING DITCH (1861-05-31).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4169.0 | 1861-05-31 | 1903-08-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOM | 1 |
| 4352.0 | 1861-11-30 | 1903-08-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOM | 3 |
| 4384.0 | 1862-01-01 | 1903-08-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOM | 4 |
| 4474.0 | 1862-04-01 | 1903-08-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOM | 6 |
| 5114.0 | 1864-01-01 | 1903-08-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOM | 13 |
| 19579.10865 | 1879-09-30 | 1925-01-12 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | 121 |
| 20639.0 | 1906-07-05 | 1925-01-12 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | STOMUNDOM | 161 |
| 58100.0 | 2009-01-26 | 2009-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGPWR |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
18CW3017, 09CW0011, W1104, CA6118-41, CA6118, W4629.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
18CW3017 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
09CW0011 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
W1104 | 1 | 1925-01-12 | S |
CA6118-41 | 1 | 1925-01-12 | S |
CA6118 | 2 | 1925-01-12 | S |
W4629 | 5 | 1903-08-10 | 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 0 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 277 AF — —% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 9 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 56 | 10th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 17 | 4.1 |
| 2012 | 148 | 12th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 46 | 2.5 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 9 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 19 | 0.0 |
| 2017 | 76 | 11th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 47 | 1.8 |
| 2018 | 25 | 9th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 39 | 0.4 |
| 2019 | 393 | 15th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 189 | 2.2 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 17 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 232 | 13th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 157 | 1.5 |
| 2024 | 277 | 14th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 145 | 47.0 |
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1125 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1979-2024 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.