Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ROGERS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2300634 · DITCH · HIGH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:45 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (0576005) — 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.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1863-12-30).
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 1884-06-01 — 776th most senior of the 21881 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: 2300937 (1882-06-01). Immediately behind: 2300513 (1885-06-01).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14536.12571 | 1884-06-01 | 1893-10-30 | 10.72 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
84CW0010, 10/30/1893.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
84CW0010 | 2 | 1893-10-30 | S |
10/30/1893 | 1 | 1893-10-30 | S |
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 258 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 258 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1981 | 22 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 10 | 2.0 |
| 1982 | 93 | 6th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 49 | 1.0 |
| 1983 | 387 | 11th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 155 | 3.0 |
| 1984 | 351 | 10th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 75 | 7.0 |
| 1985 | 528 | 13th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | 48 | 9.0 |
| 1986 | 226 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 71 | 5.0 |
| 1987 | 547 | 14th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 47 | 14.0 |
| 1989 | 30 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 16 | 1.0 |
| 1995 | 312 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 64 | 3.5 |
| 1996 | 77 | 5th lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 60 | 1.5 |
| 1997 | 400 | 12th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 62 | 5.0 |
| 1998 | 33 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 34 | 0.5 |
| 1999 | 44 | 4th lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 47 | 0.5 |
| 2003 | 797 | 15th lowest of 15 · 309% of median | 165 | 5.0 |
| 2005 | 258 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 67 | 2.0 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1526 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 15% of the irrigation seasons in 1957-2005 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.