Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WARD NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600863 · 1 · FISH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:51 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1907-07-10 — 261st most senior of the 1247 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: BLUE VALLEY DITCH (1906-08-10). Immediately behind: GIBERSON DITCH (1911-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23296.21009 | 1907-07-10 | 1914-10-12 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 196 |
| 32075.21009 | 1907-07-10 | 1952-03-10 | 3.98 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 306 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1805, 10/12/1914.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1805 | 1 | 1952-03-10 | S |
10/12/1914 | 1 | 1914-10-12 | 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 79 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 75 AF — 95% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 66 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 143 | 0.6 |
| 2001 | 100 | 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 111 | 0.8 |
| 2002 | 4 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 72 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 12 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 46 | 0.1 |
| 2004 | 30 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 109 | 0.3 |
| 2005 | 100 | 12th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 127 | 0.8 |
| 2006 | 63 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 125 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 90 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 163 | 0.7 |
| 2008 | 118 | 14th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 151 | 1.1 |
| 2009 | 197 | 15th lowest of 15 · 249% of median | 173 | 1.1 |
| 2010 | 83 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 120 | 0.7 |
| 2021 | 82 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 119 | 0.8 |
| 2022 | 48 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 89 | 0.5 |
| 2023 | 79 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 137 | 0.6 |
| 2024 | 75 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 167 | 0.5 |
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 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 | 4041 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2024 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.