Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COFFEE POT DITCH HGT 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5301146 · 1 · FRENCH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:46 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 1914-06-18 — 251st 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: COFFEE POT DITCH HGT 1 (1914-06-18). Immediately behind: KAYSER DOMESTIC WELL (1922-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26112.23544 | 1914-06-18 | 1922-01-30 | 0.4 | 0.3 | C | IRR | 244 |
| 33023.26449 | 1922-06-01 | 1956-02-07 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 320 |
| 33023.30163 | 1932-08-01 | 1956-02-07 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | DOM | 334 |
| 37497.0 | 1952-08-30 | 1956-02-07 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 386 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1123, CA0730.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1123 | 4 | 1956-02-07 | S |
CA0730 | 2 | 1922-01-30 | 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 53 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 53 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 60 | 9th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 93 | 0.5 |
| 1991 | 36 | 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 91 | 0.3 |
| 1993 | 79 | 12th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 86 | 0.6 |
| 1994 | 20 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 61 | 0.2 |
| 1995 | 113 | 14th lowest of 15 · 213% of median | 92 | 0.7 |
| 1996 | 21 | 4th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 108 | 0.1 |
| 1997 | 105 | 13th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 107 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 25 | 5th lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 52 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 16 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 81 | 0.1 |
| 2010 | 14 | 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 73 | 0.1 |
| 2011 | 179 | 15th lowest of 15 · 338% of median | 121 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 61 | 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 112 | 0.5 |
| 2013 | 38 | 7th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 59 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 61 | 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 83 | 0.6 |
| 2017 | 53 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 94 | 0.5 |
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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1313 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1990-2017 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.