Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

ST LOUIS NO 2 DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5100913 · 1 · SAINT LOUIS CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1902-07-15 — 150th most senior of the 2208 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: ALGER DITCH (1902-07-01). Immediately behind: BIG LAKE DITCH (1903-02-06).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
19188.01902-07-151906-08-11 4.00.0 CIRR 132

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 543 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1993, came in at 339 AF — 62% of that, and 7th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1979 662 13th lowest of 15 · 122% of median 72 4.7
1980 593 12th lowest of 15 · 109% of median 72 5.0
1981 561 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median 130 4.7
1982 788 15th lowest of 15 · 145% of median 68 6.9
1983 726 14th lowest of 15 · 134% of median 62 6.0
1984 321 5th lowest of 15 · 59% of median 55 3.0
1985 547 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median 40 8.0
1986 547 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median 40 8.0
1987 543 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 119 4.3
1988 50 1st lowest of 15 · 9% of median 27 1.0
1989 166 3rd lowest of 15 · 31% of median 50 2.9
1990 175 4th lowest of 15 · 32% of median 45 2.0
1991 333 6th lowest of 15 · 61% of median 74 3.0
1992 60 2nd lowest of 15 · 11% of median 31 1.0
1993 339 7th lowest of 15 · 62% of median 171 1.0

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 1335 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 34% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-1993 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.