Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SHEEK DITCH AP NO. 2
Structure dossier · WDID 3400850 · 1 · MANCOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:46 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 1878-05-15 — 184th 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: WESTON AND JARRETT DITCH (1878-05-15). Immediately behind: BAUER RESERVOIR D NO 2 (1880-05-15).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10362.0 | 1878-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-6 |
| 11093.0 | 1880-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-8 |
| 11823.0 | 1882-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-13 |
| 12554.0 | 1884-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-20 |
| 14380.0 | 1889-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-36 |
| 30667.10957 | 1879-12-31 | 1963-03-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMOTH | 62-3 |
| 30667.1435 | 1889-04-15 | 1963-03-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-13 |
| 55882.55303 | 2001-05-31 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
10CW0090.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0090 | 8 | 2003-12-31 | O, 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 561 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 459 AF — 82% 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 | 843 | 14th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 145 | 6.2 |
| 2012 | 522 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 157 | 4.0 |
| 2013 | 423 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 111 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 693 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 164 | 5.6 |
| 2015 | 1,048 | 15th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 176 | 10.0 |
| 2016 | 608 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 140 | 5.4 |
| 2017 | 630 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 151 | 4.6 |
| 2018 | 332 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 124 | 3.4 |
| 2019 | 647 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 166 | 4.9 |
| 2020 | 462 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 110 | 4.2 |
| 2021 | 413 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 166 | 4.5 |
| 2022 | 814 | 13th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 365 | 5.2 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 365 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 561 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 4.7 |
| 2025 | 459 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 304 | 4.5 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3010 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 97% of the irrigation seasons in 2011-2025 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.