Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
POVERTY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000898 · 1 · ESCALANTE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:42 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 1897-04-01 — 658th most senior of the 4661 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: HARVEY DITCH (1896-03-15). Immediately behind: MCCARTHY DITCH NO 2 (1902-03-25).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19773.17258 | 1897-04-01 | 1906-02-17 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 15 |
| 38064.29658 | 1931-03-15 | 1964-01-31 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | K59 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4808, CA0456.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4808 | 1 | 1964-01-31 | S |
CA0456 | 1 | 1906-02-17 | 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 303 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 191 AF — 63% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 588 | 14th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | 139 | 4.0 |
| 2011 | 352 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 125 | 2.5 |
| 2012 | 888 | 15th lowest of 15 · 293% of median | 181 | 4.0 |
| 2013 | 351 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 129 | 2.1 |
| 2014 | 454 | 12th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 126 | 3.5 |
| 2015 | 165 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 70 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 323 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 122 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 282 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 95 | 2.5 |
| 2018 | 489 | 13th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 110 | 3.2 |
| 2019 | 168 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 80 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 284 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 138 | 1.5 |
| 2021 | 160 | 1st lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 91 | 1.2 |
| 2022 | 179 | 4th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 98 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 303 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 109 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 191 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 76 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-22 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7457 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 64% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.