Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STAPLES DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 4700896 · 1 · NEWCOMB CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:07 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 1890-06-01 — 229th 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: TELLER DITCH (1890-05-20). Immediately behind: CLAYTON DITCH (1890-06-08).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14762.0 | 1890-06-01 | 1902-04-23 | 15.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 108 |
| 17665.0 | 1898-05-13 | 1902-04-23 | 14.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 149(132) |
| 18839.0 | 1901-07-31 | 1908-07-01 | 32.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 158 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1784, CA0378, CA1523.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1784 | 1 | 1908-07-01 | O |
CA0378 | 1 | 1908-07-01 | O |
CA1523 | 2 | 1902-04-23 | 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 2,507 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 576 AF — 23% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 3,070 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 96 | 51.0 |
| 2012 | 2,974 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 174 | 30.3 |
| 2013 | 2,525 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 133 | 34.2 |
| 2014 | 4,454 | 14th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 129 | 27.2 |
| 2015 | 2,507 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 61 | 32.3 |
| 2016 | 3,561 | 13th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 130 | 28.8 |
| 2017 | 1,917 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 133 | 9.7 |
| 2018 | 2,647 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 129 | 31.3 |
| 2019 | 5,814 | 15th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 109 | 41.2 |
| 2020 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 20 | 0.3 |
| 2021 | 2,419 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 49 | 42.2 |
| 2022 | 1,396 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 43 | 16.8 |
| 2023 | 547 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 43 | 6.6 |
| 2024 | 1,418 | 5th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 34 | 24.6 |
| 2025 | 576 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 23 | 13.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-168 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
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 | 4279 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.