Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

CLARK NO 2 DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 2800528 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 21:00 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (8fce2b6) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.

In short

CLARK NO 2 DITCH holds 3 decreed rights on TOMICHI CREEK. We cannot judge whether its rights are in priority: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it. In a median year over its last 15 recorded years it diverts 349 acre-feet. It was a party to 1 court cases that also touched 5 other structures.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (6 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Download this structure

Everything on this page as data you can work with — and a README that makes it citable: the HydroBase snapshot it was built from, the build commit, what every column means, the method behind each derived figure, and that method's stated limits.

⇩ Full record (.zip) Print / save as PDF

Or one table at a time: rights.csv · annual_use.csv · curtailment_now.csv · court_cases.csv · co_parties.csv · call_climatology.csv

What is in the bundle
  • rights.csv — every decreed right, most senior first, with admin numbers, dates, amounts, uses and case numbers.
  • annual_use.csv — recorded diversion by year, with releases accounted separately.
  • curtailment_now.csv — each right's current priority status and how often it was out across analog years.
  • court_cases.csv — the cases attached to its rights.
  • co_parties.csv — the other structures that were parties to those cases. Not available anywhere else.
  • call_climatology.csv — how often each right has been out of priority by week of season, with confidence intervals and the seasons the record could actually judge.
  • README.txt — provenance, methods, limits, disclaimer, and links back to DWR's own records for verification.

Where it sits

Location as DWR records it (diversion). 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 1888-06-01 — 132nd most senior of the 1505 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: CLARK NO 1 DITCH (1888-06-01). Immediately behind: CLARK NO 3 DITCH (1888-06-01).

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. Decreed forWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
16192.14032 1888-06-011904-04-29 1.4 C 0.0 Irrigation 97
28311.14032 1888-06-011943-04-19 5.6 C 0.0 Irrigation 255
54786.14032 1888-06-012000-12-31 0.25 C 0.0 Stock

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

Years far under the decreed amount? That gap has a name — paper water vs. wet water, explained on this structure.

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 349 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2011 597 15th lowest of 15 · 171% of median 93 5.1
2012 491 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median 55 8.9
2013 415 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median 72 4.7
2014 303 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median 65 2.7
2015 566 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median 97 4.7
2016 249 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median 64 2.2
2017 332 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median 73 3.5
2018 252 5th lowest of 15 · 72% of median 67 3.5
2019 164 3rd lowest of 15 · 47% of median 52 1.6
2020 349 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 80 2.7
2021 146 2nd lowest of 15 · 42% of median 38 2.7
2022 463 12th lowest of 15 · 133% of median 93 2.7
2023 370 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median 73 3.1
2024 375 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median 79 3.1
2025 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 1 0.0

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 3 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 4212 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.