Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SAINT NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900661 · 1 · WEST ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:15 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 1883-04-01 — 9th most senior of the 1758 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: WEST LAT RIFLE CR CANON (1883-03-10). Immediately behind: WISDOM DITCH (1883-04-01).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12144.0 | 1883-04-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.56 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 6 |
| 12664.0 | 1884-09-02 | 1889-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 29 |
| 12664.0 | 1884-09-02 | 1889-05-11 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 30 |
| 12875.0 | 1885-04-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 37 |
| 12875.0 | 1885-04-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 38 |
| 13588.0 | 1887-03-15 | 1889-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 97 |
| 14046.0 | 1888-06-15 | 1889-05-11 | 1.24 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 141 |
| 44559.30467 | 1933-06-01 | 1972-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W1670, CA3283.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1670 | 1 | 1972-12-31 | S |
CA3283 | 7 | 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 267 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 277 AF — 104% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 457 | 11th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | — | 131 | 2.3 |
| 1996 | 457 | 11th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | — | 131 | 2.3 |
| 1997 | 916 | 15th lowest of 15 · 343% of median | — | 168 | 3.6 |
| 1998 | 664 | 13th lowest of 15 · 249% of median | — | 182 | 2.6 |
| 1999 | 267 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 162 | 1.2 |
| 2000 | 407 | 10th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | — | 123 | 2.3 |
| 2001 | 812 | 14th lowest of 15 · 304% of median | — | 196 | 3.2 |
| 2002 | 33 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 84 | 50 | 0.5 |
| 2003 | 264 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | — | 166 | 1.9 |
| 2004 | 149 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 125 | 0.7 |
| 2005 | 250 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | — | 180 | 1.2 |
| 2006 | 18 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | — | 61 | 0.2 |
| 2007 | 220 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 358 | 0.8 |
| 2008 | 114 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | — | 321 | 0.3 |
| 2009 | 277 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 245 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-29 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.015).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5156 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2009 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.