Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
THOMAS NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801045 · 1 · THOMAS 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 1884-04-10 — 111th 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: BOWLES AND HOLLAND DITCH (1884-04-09). Immediately behind: THOMAS RES FEEDER DITCH (1884-04-10).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12519.0 | 1884-04-10 | 1889-05-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 82 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0132, 90CW0129.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0132 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | O |
90CW0129 | 2 | 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 378 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2004, came in at 60 AF — 16% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1976 | 491 | 9th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 165 | 2.0 |
| 1977 | 352 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 153 | 1.5 |
| 1978 | 532 | 11th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 134 | 2.0 |
| 1979 | 532 | 11th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 134 | 2.0 |
| 1980 | 730 | 15th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 170 | 2.2 |
| 1981 | 284 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 144 | 1.0 |
| 1982 | 282 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 143 | 1.0 |
| 1983 | 317 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 160 | 1.0 |
| 1984 | 694 | 14th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 175 | 2.0 |
| 1985 | 508 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 129 | 2.0 |
| 1986 | 122 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 124 | 0.5 |
| 1987 | 378 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 107 | 1.8 |
| 1988 | 157 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 84 | 1.2 |
| 1989 | 565 | 13th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 189 | 3.5 |
| 2004 | 60 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 94 | 0.4 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2354 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2004 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.