Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TABOR DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 6204600 · 1 · CEBOLLA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:59 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 1910-07-23 — 522nd 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: SQUIRREL NO 1 DITCH (1910-07-01). Immediately behind: WHITTINGHAM DITCH NO 5 (1911-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 33348.22118 | 1910-07-23 | 1960-03-30 | 6.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 339 |
| 36659.0 | 1950-05-15 | 1960-03-30 | 15.21 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 395 |
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 701 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 701 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 559 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 142 | 11.4 |
| 2012 | 356 | 1st lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 147 | 5.0 |
| 2013 | 483 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 163 | 4.3 |
| 2014 | 947 | 11th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 177 | 13.7 |
| 2015 | 1,392 | 15th lowest of 15 · 199% of median | 200 | 19.3 |
| 2016 | 1,019 | 12th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 167 | 15.4 |
| 2017 | 1,168 | 13th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 235 | 13.6 |
| 2018 | 399 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 269 | 5.7 |
| 2019 | 1,324 | 14th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 156 | 14.1 |
| 2020 | 642 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 185 | 7.7 |
| 2021 | 780 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 193 | 10.6 |
| 2022 | 417 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 167 | 2.7 |
| 2023 | 790 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 190 | 5.2 |
| 2024 | 696 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 180 | 5.9 |
| 2025 | 701 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 201 | 6.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 4704 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 90% of the irrigation seasons in 2001-2025 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.