Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH DITCH HGT 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5000738 · 1 · RED DIRT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:06 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 1894-12-31 — 77th most senior of the 360 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: SMITH DITCH HGT 1 (1894-12-31). Immediately behind: SMITH DITCH HGT 3 (1894-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20676.16436 | 1894-12-31 | 1911-08-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 84 |
| 21973.0 | 1910-02-28 | 1911-08-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 113 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0265, CA0210, 98CW0047.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0265 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | S |
CA0210 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | S |
98CW0047 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | 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 73 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 53 AF — 73% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 175 | 12th lowest of 15 · 240% of median | 52 | 2.5 |
| 2006 | 93 | 9th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 28 | 2.1 |
| 2007 | 245 | 13th lowest of 15 · 336% of median | 43 | 3.8 |
| 2008 | 246 | 14th lowest of 15 · 337% of median | 49 | 3.7 |
| 2009 | 121 | 11th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 51 | 2.3 |
| 2010 | 36 | 4th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 10 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 267 | 15th lowest of 15 · 366% of median | 55 | 3.2 |
| 2012 | 29 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 19 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 62 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 50 | 1.1 |
| 2014 | 73 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 36 | 1.4 |
| 2015 | 57 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 33 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 32 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 38 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 116 | 10th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 50 | 1.7 |
| 2018 | 16 | 1st lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 18 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 53 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 47 | 1.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-10 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1417 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1990-2020 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.