Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

BELLFLOWER DITCH NO 2

Structure dossier · WDID 3100598 · 1 · WALLACE GULCH · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:47 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 1957-06-01 — 428th 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: BELLFLOWER DITCH NO 3 (1952-06-01). Immediately behind: BELLFLOWER RETENTION RES (1957-06-01).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
42434.392331957-06-011970-12-31 5.00.0 CIRRFISSTK

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 54 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2004, came in at 33 AF — 61% 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.

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 recordReleased (AF)Days recordedPeak (cfs)
1990 43 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median — 335 0.1
1991 36 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median — 284 0.2
1992 72 12th lowest of 15 · 133% of median — 356 0.2
1993 84 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median — 335 0.2
1994 61 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median — 291 0.2
1995 385 15th lowest of 15 · 713% of median — 365 2.0
1996 33 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median — 251 0.1
1997 117 14th lowest of 15 · 217% of median — 365 0.2
1998 54 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median — 289 0.2
1999 71 11th lowest of 15 · 132% of median — 360 0.1
2000 58 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median — 280 0.5
2001 47 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median — 291 0.1
2002 28 1st lowest of 15 · 52% of median — 230 0.1
2003 37 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median — 256 0.1
2004 33 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median — 218 0.1

How good is our record of it?

Grade A (9/10 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 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 8476 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity continuous 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1971-2004 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.