Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WILLIAMS NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801096 · 1 · CAPITOL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:52 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 1880-06-07 — 260th 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: DEER CREEK NO 2 DITCH (1893-04-01). Immediately behind: WILLIAMS NO 1 D CAP CR (1881-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19145.11116 | 1880-06-07 | 1902-06-21 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | O1 |
| 49338.0 | 1985-01-30 | 1985-12-31 | 2.5 | 2.5 | C | FISOTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
89CW0129, 85CW0048, CA0968.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
89CW0129 | 1 | 1985-12-31 | S |
85CW0048 | 1 | 1985-12-31 | S |
CA0968 | 1 | 1902-06-21 | 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 826 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2006, came in at 232 AF — 28% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1981 | 960 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 122 | 4.0 |
| 1982 | 952 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 121 | 4.0 |
| 1983 | 1,214 | 12th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 153 | 4.0 |
| 1984 | 1,349 | 13th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 170 | 4.0 |
| 1985 | 976 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 124 | 4.0 |
| 1987 | 1,583 | 14th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 142 | 5.7 |
| 1988 | 636 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 138 | 6.2 |
| 1989 | 1,634 | 15th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 192 | 8.1 |
| 1990 | 826 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 125 | 10.0 |
| 1991 | 688 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 159 | 6.4 |
| 1992 | 95 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 55 | 2.0 |
| 1993 | 701 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 107 | 3.5 |
| 1994 | 636 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 147 | 2.7 |
| 1995 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2006 | 232 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 78 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-46 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.015).
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 | 2648 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2006 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.