Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAKER NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6200524 · 1 · LAKE FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:34 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 1906-05-11 — 196th 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: BAKER DITCH (1906-05-11). Immediately behind: BUTTE & BUTTE EX DITCH (1906-05-11).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23138.20584 | 1906-05-11 | 1925-07-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 133 |
| 33348.23131 | 1913-05-01 | 1960-03-30 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 349 |
| 37836.0 | 1953-08-04 | 1960-03-30 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 418 |
| 38137.0 | 1954-06-01 | 1960-03-30 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 429 |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
97CW0187, 94CW0141, CA6981, 00CW0100, 02CW0118.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
97CW0187 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
94CW0141 | 2 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA6981 | 3 | 1960-03-30 | S |
00CW0100 | 6 | 1960-03-30 | S |
02CW0118 | 1 | 1925-07-11 | 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 379 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 379 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 82 | 3.4 |
| 2010 | 532 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 83 | 6.0 |
| 2011 | 277 | 6th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 141 | 1.6 |
| 2012 | 301 | 7th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 88 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 690 | 13th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 175 | 5.2 |
| 2014 | 190 | 5th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 103 | 1.9 |
| 2015 | 105 | 4th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 62 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 467 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 74 | 6.3 |
| 2018 | 620 | 12th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 121 | 7.8 |
| 2019 | 1,370 | 15th lowest of 15 · 362% of median | 77 | 10.8 |
| 2020 | 1,240 | 14th lowest of 15 · 327% of median | 80 | 9.8 |
| 2021 | 386 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 87 | 3.4 |
| 2022 | 2 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 21 | 0.1 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3256 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 30% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2025 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.