Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HIGHLAND NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800752 · 1 · WEST SOPRIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:50 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 1887-06-08 — 226th 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: DALY WELL NO 1 (1887-05-27). Immediately behind: EAST BRUSH CREEK DITCH (1887-06-27).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13673.0 | 1887-06-08 | 1889-05-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIRSTKAUGOTH | 180 |
| 14036.0 | 1888-06-05 | 1889-05-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIRSTKAUGOTH | 191 |
| 36396.35946 | 1948-06-01 | 1952-10-24 | 1.61 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 580 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4033, 07CW0087, CA0132, 07CW0196.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4033 | 1 | 1952-10-24 | S |
07CW0087 | 4 | 1952-10-24 | O, S |
CA0132 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | O |
07CW0196 | 4 | 1889-05-11 | 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 299 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 617 AF — 206% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 274 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 132 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 395 | 9th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 168 | 1.9 |
| 2009 | 130 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 83 | 0.9 |
| 2010 | 227 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 103 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 427 | 11th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 190 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 417 | 10th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 36 | 6.0 |
| 2013 | 130 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 64 | 1.6 |
| 2014 | 296 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 135 | 2.5 |
| 2015 | 299 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 109 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | 265 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 74 | 2.5 |
| 2019 | 462 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 142 | 2.0 |
| 2020 | 64 | 1st lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 48 | 0.7 |
| 2022 | 604 | 14th lowest of 15 · 202% of median | 167 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 564 | 13th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 165 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 617 | 15th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 181 | 2.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5451 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2024 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.