Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BUTLER NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3000519 · 1 · ELBERT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1897-04-25 — 359th most senior of the 2277 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: LOVE DITCH (1897-04-24). Immediately behind: WHISKEMAN WELL #1 (1897-04-25).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17282.0 | 1897-04-25 | 1923-11-08 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMDOMAUG | E-10 |
| 20970.0 | 1907-06-01 | 1923-11-08 | 0.625 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMDOMAUG | E-11 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W1356, CA1751, 80CW0236, 80CW0234.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1356 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
CA1751 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
80CW0236 | 2 | 1923-11-08 | O |
80CW0234 | 4 | 1923-11-08 | 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 37 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 25 AF — 68% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 38 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 40 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 32 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 33 | 1.3 |
| 2004 | 31 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | — | 28 | 1.1 |
| 2005 | 26 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | — | 29 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 41 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | — | 41 | 1.7 |
| 2007 | 37 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 32 | 2.1 |
| 2008 | 53 | 13th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | — | 43 | 1.1 |
| 2009 | 74 | 15th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | — | 56 | 2.1 |
| 2010 | 35 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 30 | 2.1 |
| 2011 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 49 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | — | 17 | 2.1 |
| 2013 | 73 | 14th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | — | 43 | 2.1 |
| 2014 | 32 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 14 | 2.1 |
| 2015 | 45 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | — | 15 | 2.1 |
| 2016 | 25 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | — | 7 | 2.1 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4263 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1925-2016 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.