Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PALMER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100522 · 1 · RED CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:46 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 1881-06-01 — 294th most senior of the 1037 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: KING DITCH (1881-05-01). Immediately behind: SCHRODER IRRIGATION DITCH (1881-09-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11475.0 | 1881-06-01 | 1934-06-12 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | RC-1 |
| 44559.11504 | 1881-06-30 | 1972-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0523, CA1248.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0523 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
CA1248 | 1 | 1934-06-12 | 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 312 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 83 AF — 27% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 486 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | — | 82 | 6.1 |
| 2010 | 509 | 15th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | — | 184 | 6.8 |
| 2011 | 477 | 13th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | — | 121 | 7.2 |
| 2012 | 291 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 141 | 6.0 |
| 2013 | 245 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | — | 122 | 4.5 |
| 2014 | 420 | 10th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | — | 160 | 5.4 |
| 2015 | 425 | 11th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | — | 137 | 5.5 |
| 2016 | 335 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | — | 105 | 6.2 |
| 2017 | 312 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 87 | 6.7 |
| 2019 | 444 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | — | 118 | 8.0 |
| 2020 | 204 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | — | 202 | 5.6 |
| 2021 | 123 | 4th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | — | 365 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 120 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | — | 304 | 1.9 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 83 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | — | 305 | 3.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-30 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 8344 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2024 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.