Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ANGEHRN NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200506 · 1 · WEST BRANCH COTTONWOOD C · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:17 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 1914-07-15 — 104th most senior of the 562 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: RUSSELL NO 2 DITCH (1916-06-12). Immediately behind: SEVEN PINES DITCH (1915-06-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24304.23571 | 1914-07-15 | 1917-06-04 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 29437.28258 | 1927-05-15 | 1946-08-30 | 2.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 173A |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1038, CA0688.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 1 | 1946-08-30 | S |
CA0688 | 1 | 1917-06-04 | 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 212 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 48 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1983 | 1,004 | 15th lowest of 15 · 474% of median | 176 | 4.0 |
| 1984 | 567 | 14th lowest of 15 · 268% of median | 119 | 3.8 |
| 1985 | 362 | 11th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 89 | 2.8 |
| 1986 | 548 | 13th lowest of 15 · 258% of median | 80 | 4.2 |
| 1987 | 264 | 9th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 45 | 3.0 |
| 1990 | 46 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 34 | 1.0 |
| 1991 | 39 | 1st lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 31 | 1.0 |
| 1993 | 524 | 12th lowest of 15 · 247% of median | 116 | 4.0 |
| 1998 | 268 | 10th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 65 | 2.3 |
| 1999 | 132 | 6th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 58 | 1.2 |
| 2003 | 212 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 1.8 |
| 2004 | 131 | 5th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 37 | 1.8 |
| 2007 | 77 | 4th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 80 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 140 | 7th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 49 | 1.5 |
| 2009 | 48 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 39 | 0.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-19 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.006).
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 | 1620 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2009 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.