Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
POWELL DITCH NO. 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5800828 · 1 · WATSON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:58 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 1889-05-12 — 96th 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: POWELL DITCH NO. 1 (1889-05-12). Immediately behind: GIBBS DITCH (1889-05-20).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14377.0 | 1889-05-12 | 1892-09-22 | 0.34 | 0.0 | C | IRR | (71)77 |
| 33782.25353 | 1919-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 320D |
| 41073.0 | 1962-06-15 | 1964-03-30 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 53 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA3538, CA2475, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3538 | 1 | 1964-03-30 | S |
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
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 192 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 340 AF — 177% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 234 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 86 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 244 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 83 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 262 | 12th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 90 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 291 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 158 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 131 | 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 34 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 305 | 14th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 92 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 175 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 57 | 2.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 135 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 36 | 2.0 |
| 2020 | 192 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 88 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 79 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 115 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 137 | 0.5 |
| 2023 | 220 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 166 | 1.2 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 340 | 15th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 130 | 3.3 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8124 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2025 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.