← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

BUFFALO DITCH NO 2

Structure dossier · WDID 3801484 · 1 · BUFFALO CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 22:50 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 1925-12-31732nd 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: TUCKER SPRINGS NO. 1,2,3&4 (1920-07-01). Immediately behind: BUFFALO DITCH NO 3 (1925-12-31).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
36396.277581925-12-311952-10-24 0.00.0 CIRR 536

Recorded use (last 9 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 40 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 32 AF — 80% of that, and 4th lowest of the 9 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2008 56 7th lowest of 9 · 140% of median 15 2.0
2009 69 8th lowest of 9 · 172% of median 40 1.1
2010 40 5th lowest of 9 · 100% of median 30 1.1
2011 238 9th lowest of 9 · 595% of median 71 2.0
2014 40 5th lowest of 9 · 100% of median 11 2.0
2015 20 3rd lowest of 9 · 50% of median 6 2.0
2017 12 1st lowest of 9 · 30% of median 4 2.0
2019 16 2nd lowest of 9 · 40% of median 5 2.0
2020 32 4th lowest of 9 · 80% of median 33 0.5

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 215 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 8% of the irrigation seasons in 2008-2020 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.