Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
POVERTY FLAT D NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 4700844 · 1 · SOUTH FORK MICHIGAN RIVE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:10 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 1889-06-21 — 215th 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: LAKE JOHN CMPGRD GALLERY (1889-06-20). Immediately behind: DULANEY DITCH (1889-06-30).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14417.0 | 1889-06-21 | 1892-09-19 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 197(177) |
| 14782.0 | 1890-06-21 | 1892-09-19 | 14.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 231(206) |
| 22189.0 | 1910-10-02 | 1913-01-06 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 365 |
| 24238.0 | 1916-05-12 | 1923-03-06 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 399 |
| 38605.0 | 1955-09-12 | 1958-01-10 | 16.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 780 |
| 50403.32353 | 1938-07-31 | 1988-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
88CW0120, CA0511, CA3571, CA2891, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0120 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
CA0511 | 1 | 1958-01-10 | S |
CA3571 | 1 | 1923-03-06 | S |
CA2891 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
CA0922 | 2 | 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 1,996 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,499 AF — 75% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,038 | 1st lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 23 | 31.6 |
| 2012 | 1,249 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 65 | 14.8 |
| 2013 | 1,570 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 39 | 38.3 |
| 2014 | 1,667 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 38 | 26.3 |
| 2015 | 3,179 | 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 71 | 32.9 |
| 2016 | 1,883 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 51 | 24.2 |
| 2017 | 2,395 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 62 | 28.1 |
| 2018 | 2,278 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 56 | 30.3 |
| 2019 | 2,014 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 52 | 27.2 |
| 2020 | 1,996 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 51 | 24.2 |
| 2021 | 1,782 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 57 | 24.2 |
| 2022 | 2,223 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 53 | 28.8 |
| 2023 | 2,661 | 13th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 56 | 32.0 |
| 2024 | 2,893 | 14th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 66 | 28.5 |
| 2025 | 1,499 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 63 | 39.7 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3037 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 20% of the irrigation seasons in 1953-2025 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.