Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAILEY R & RS WILSON D
Structure dossier · WDID 6200520 · 1 · POWDERHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:12 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 1949-06-01 — 564th most senior of the 1980 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: LATHROP DITCH NO 3 (1948-07-12). Immediately behind: FERRARO DITCH NO 2 (1950-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36311.0 | 1949-06-01 | 1960-03-30 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 38137.0 | 1954-06-01 | 1960-03-30 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 430 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA6981.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA6981 | 2 | 1960-03-30 | 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 361 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2008, came in at 136 AF — 38% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 913 | 14th lowest of 15 · 253% of median | 94 | 8.2 |
| 1995 | 901 | 13th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 91 | 8.1 |
| 1996 | 433 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 68 | 4.1 |
| 1997 | 848 | 12th lowest of 15 · 235% of median | 70 | 8.0 |
| 1998 | 691 | 11th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 72 | 6.6 |
| 1999 | 1,143 | 15th lowest of 15 · 317% of median | 78 | 10.2 |
| 2000 | 361 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 64 | 5.0 |
| 2001 | 329 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 44 | 4.2 |
| 2002 | 294 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 76 | 2.0 |
| 2003 | 339 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 73 | 3.0 |
| 2004 | 365 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 77 | 6.0 |
| 2005 | 282 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 74 | 2.0 |
| 2006 | 250 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 66 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 349 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 67 | 4.0 |
| 2008 | 136 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 94 | 1.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-49 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
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 | 1704 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2008 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.