Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARR DITCH 2
Structure dossier · WDID 4700755 · 1 · GRIZZLY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:24 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1887-05-01 — 109th most senior of the 1262 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: DRYER DITCH (1887-05-01). Immediately behind: NORTH PARK DITCH NO 6 (1887-05-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13635.0 | 1887-05-01 | 1892-09-19 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 39 |
| 43829.14366 | 1889-05-01 | 1970-12-31 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | |
| 56769.0 | 2005-06-05 | 2005-12-31 | 33.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
05CW0042, W0049-70, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0042 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
W0049-70 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
CA0922 | 1 | 1892-09-19 | 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 3,947 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 948 AF — 24% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 2,498 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 123 | 46.4 |
| 2008 | 3,591 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 79 | 46.0 |
| 2009 | 5,215 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 96 | 47.0 |
| 2010 | 3,848 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 71 | 50.0 |
| 2011 | 8,014 | 15th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 76 | 68.8 |
| 2012 | 452 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 101 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 3,947 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 68 | 45.0 |
| 2014 | 6,686 | 14th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 123 | 46.4 |
| 2015 | 4,900 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 85 | 60.1 |
| 2016 | 5,069 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 59 | 55.4 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 1,484 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 35 | 22.0 |
| 2022 | 4,221 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 23 | 96.7 |
| 2023 | 6,147 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 50 | 64.9 |
| 2024 | 948 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 29 | 17.1 |
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 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3669 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.