Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PJ MARTIN NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300755 · 1 · SHEEP CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:21 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 1911-05-12 — 226th most senior of the 1231 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: RED DIRT DITCH (1911-05-05). Immediately behind: POISON CREEK DITCH (1911-06-15).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22411.0 | 1911-05-12 | 1913-11-10 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 238 |
| 55152.55133 | 2000-12-12 | 2001-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRFISFIRSTKAUGOTHWLD | |
| 55152.55133 | 2000-12-12 | 2001-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISFIRSTKAUGOTHWLD | |
| 55175.0 | 2001-01-23 | 2001-12-31 | 2.94 | 11.66 | A | RECFISFIRSTKWLD | |
| 55175.0 | 2001-01-23 | 2001-12-31 | 0.35 | 0.15 | C | RECFISFIRSTKWLD | |
| 57060.0 | 2006-03-23 | 2001-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.5 | C | RECFISFIRSTKWLD |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
11CW0085, 01CW0041, 01CW0040, W2631, CA0560.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
11CW0085 | 3 | 2001-12-31 | S |
01CW0041 | 2 | 2001-12-31 | S |
01CW0040 | 2 | 2001-12-31 | S |
W2631 | 1 | 1913-11-10 | S |
CA0560 | 2 | 1913-11-10 | 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 272 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 975 AF — 358% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 207 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 150 | 1.7 |
| 2010 | 305 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 130 | 3.5 |
| 2011 | 526 | 14th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 146 | 3.4 |
| 2013 | 157 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 124 | 1.9 |
| 2014 | 233 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 130 | 3.7 |
| 2015 | 232 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 181 | 1.6 |
| 2016 | 328 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 147 | 4.6 |
| 2017 | 295 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 149 | 1.8 |
| 2018 | 272 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 162 | 2.3 |
| 2019 | 360 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 145 | 2.3 |
| 2020 | 165 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 78 | 2.7 |
| 2021 | 139 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 150 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 130 | 1st lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 99 | 1.5 |
| 2023 | 521 | 13th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 134 | 4.6 |
| 2024 | 975 | 15th lowest of 15 · 358% of median | 149 | 9.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4524 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.