Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAUER RESERVOIR D NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 3400504 · 1 · CHICKEN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1880-05-15 — 185th most senior of the 495 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: SHEEK DITCH AP NO. 2 (1878-05-15). Immediately behind: BEAVER DITCH (1880-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11093.0 | 1880-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-8 |
| 30671.0 | 1933-12-22 | 1963-03-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STODOMSTK | R62-13 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0967, 85CW0090.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0967 | 3 | 1963-03-22 | S |
85CW0090 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | 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 703 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 370 AF — 53% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,154 | 11th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 60 | 14.0 |
| 2012 | 1,078 | 10th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 104 | 17.5 |
| 2013 | 363 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 110 | 6.8 |
| 2014 | 703 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 124 | 10.5 |
| 2015 | 1,976 | 14th lowest of 15 · 281% of median | 286 | 20.0 |
| 2016 | 1,316 | 12th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 140 | 14.0 |
| 2017 | 1,451 | 13th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 313 | 14.0 |
| 2018 | 280 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 175 | 13.3 |
| 2019 | 2,322 | 15th lowest of 15 · 330% of median | 208 | 15.5 |
| 2020 | 459 | 6th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 194 | 10.9 |
| 2021 | 115 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 132 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 1,059 | 9th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 365 | 16.2 |
| 2023 | 324 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 365 | 8.2 |
| 2024 | 699 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 366 | 8.5 |
| 2025 | 370 | 5th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 304 | 6.2 |
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 (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 | 8456 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 53% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.