Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STEINMETZ DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 3801378 · 1 · CASTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:07 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 1965-12-31 — 2037th 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: LE FAVOUR SPRING AND PL (1965-12-01). Immediately behind: WILLIS WELL NO 1 (1966-07-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45290.42368 | 1965-12-31 | 1974-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFIS |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
W2388.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2388 | 2 | 1974-12-31 | 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 841 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 2,897 AF — 344% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 273 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 154 | 1.5 |
| 1992 | 907 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 305 | 1.5 |
| 1993 | 872 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 232 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 1,351 | 12th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 228 | 3.0 |
| 1995 | 1,262 | 11th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 273 | 3.0 |
| 1996 | 678 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 306 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 841 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 305 | 2.0 |
| 1998 | 787 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 279 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 514 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 173 | 2.0 |
| 2000 | 167 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 61 | 1.4 |
| 2001 | 832 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 304 | 1.4 |
| 2002 | 121 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 61 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 2,012 | 13th lowest of 15 · 239% of median | 365 | 4.5 |
| 2004 | 3,450 | 15th lowest of 15 · 410% of median | 366 | 5.1 |
| 2005 | 2,897 | 14th lowest of 15 · 344% of median | 304 | 5.1 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 3716 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1991-2005 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.