Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BARRIER DITCH (LOWER HG)
Structure dossier · WDID 5200580 · 1 · IKE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:48 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 1887-05-01 — 39th 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: BARRIER DITCH (1887-05-01). Immediately behind: ALLEN DITCH (1898-05-24).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14934.13635 | 1887-05-01 | 1902-06-18 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 36 |
| 29437.2554 | 1919-12-05 | 1946-08-30 | 1.88 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 168 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1038, CA0406.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 1 | 1946-08-30 | S |
CA0406 | 1 | 1902-06-18 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 76 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 117 AF — 154% of that, and 10th lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 62 | 4th lowest of 13 · 82% of median | 65 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 63 | 5th lowest of 13 · 83% of median | 66 | 0.5 |
| 2001 | 77 | 8th lowest of 13 · 101% of median | 64 | 0.6 |
| 2003 | 65 | 6th lowest of 13 · 86% of median | 67 | 0.5 |
| 2004 | 88 | 9th lowest of 13 · 116% of median | 82 | 0.6 |
| 2005 | 135 | 13th lowest of 13 · 178% of median | 111 | 0.6 |
| 2006 | 122 | 11th lowest of 13 · 160% of median | 100 | 0.6 |
| 2007 | 49 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 64% of median | 68 | 0.4 |
| 2008 | 39 | 1st lowest of 13 · 51% of median | 41 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 76 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 85 | 0.8 |
| 2010 | 61 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 80% of median | 64 | 0.5 |
| 2011 | 128 | 12th lowest of 13 · 168% of median | 65 | 1.1 |
| 2012 | 117 | 10th lowest of 13 · 154% of median | 50 | 1.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 13 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 928 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1999-2012 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.