Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MEANS BROS. NO. 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800643 · 1 · MARSHALL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:04 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 1888-06-30 — 193rd 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: FISHER MANNING WELL NO 3 (1903-09-01). Immediately behind: ANNA NO 1B DITCH (1904-04-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19832.14061 | 1888-06-30 | 1943-04-19 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 256 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W2752, CA2079, CA1266.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2752 | 2 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1266 | 1 | 1904-04-29 | 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 601 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1997, came in at 1,166 AF — 194% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1983 | 602 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 68 | 6.5 |
| 1984 | 2,047 | 15th lowest of 15 · 341% of median | 131 | 12.0 |
| 1985 | 841 | 10th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 68 | 8.0 |
| 1986 | 958 | 11th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 74 | 8.5 |
| 1987 | 483 | 7th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 127 | 3.2 |
| 1988 | 326 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 92 | 2.2 |
| 1989 | 601 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 129 | 3.0 |
| 1990 | 300 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 95 | 2.0 |
| 1991 | 139 | 1st lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 47 | 4.0 |
| 1992 | 363 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 70 | 3.0 |
| 1993 | 464 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 50 | 8.0 |
| 1994 | 186 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 26 | 4.5 |
| 1995 | 1,482 | 14th lowest of 15 · 247% of median | 66 | 12.0 |
| 1996 | 1,076 | 12th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 65 | 10.0 |
| 1997 | 1,166 | 13th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | 73 | 9.0 |
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 | 2104 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 36% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-1997 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.