Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COLPITTS DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 3800608 · 1 · NETTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:32 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 1946-08-01 — 752nd most senior of the 4788 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: COLPITTS DITCH NO 1 (1946-08-01). Immediately behind: FEINSINGER DITCH (1946-08-13).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36396.35276 | 1946-08-01 | 1952-10-24 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMAUG | 565 |
| 55882.55287 | 2001-05-15 | 2003-12-31 | 0.64 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
03CW0221, CA4033.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0221 | 3 | 2003-12-31 | S |
CA4033 | 1 | 1952-10-24 | 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 182 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2001, came in at 361 AF — 198% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1977 | 159 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 81 | 1.0 |
| 1978 | 303 | 9th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 153 | 1.0 |
| 1980 | 152 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 153 | 0.5 |
| 1981 | 182 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 93 | 1.0 |
| 1982 | 180 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 92 | 1.0 |
| 1983 | 303 | 9th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 153 | 1.0 |
| 1984 | 169 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 170 | 0.5 |
| 1985 | 138 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 140 | 0.5 |
| 1991 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 1993 | 541 | 14th lowest of 15 · 297% of median | 168 | 2.0 |
| 1994 | 579 | 15th lowest of 15 · 318% of median | 172 | 2.0 |
| 1995 | 524 | 13th lowest of 15 · 288% of median | 133 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2000 | 422 | 12th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 214 | 1.0 |
| 2001 | 361 | 11th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 184 | 1.0 |
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 | 2211 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2001 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.