Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOUTON DITCH NO. 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5800551 · 1 · SCOTT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:32 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 1920-12-31 — 681st most senior of the 3097 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: BOUTON DITCH NO. 1 (1920-12-31). Immediately behind: WOOLEY SEEP DITCH 1 (1923-01-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35320.25932 | 1920-12-31 | 1953-03-09 | 1.65 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 371B |
| 62091.59322 | 2012-06-01 | 2020-12-31 | 0.03 | 0.0 | C | STKWLD |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
20CW3058, CA2613.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW3058 | 1 | 2020-12-31 | S |
CA2613 | 1 | 1953-03-09 | 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 59 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 101 | 12th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 39 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 73 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 45 | 1.0 |
| 1993 | 30 | 4th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 38 | 0.5 |
| 1996 | 17 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 28 | 0.5 |
| 1997 | 97 | 11th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 59 | 1.5 |
| 1998 | 53 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 36 | 1.5 |
| 1999 | 69 | 9th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 52 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 59 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 101 | 1.0 |
| 2002 | 6 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 15 | 0.2 |
| 2003 | 34 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 48 | 0.5 |
| 2012 | 452 | 15th lowest of 15 · 766% of median | 153 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 200 | 14th lowest of 15 · 339% of median | 93 | 1.4 |
| 2022 | 145 | 13th lowest of 15 · 246% of median | 123 | 0.7 |
| 2023 | 49 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 32 | 0.8 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 (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 | 3560 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1953-2025 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.