Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WINES DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 6300576 · 8 · DOLORES RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:19 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 1899-11-01 — 194th most senior of the 533 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: WEST DITCH (1898-04-01). Immediately behind: BARTHOLOMEW AND HATCH D (1900-02-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30079.18202 | 1899-11-01 | 1939-02-11 | 0.86 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 35 |
| 56978.55657 | 2002-05-20 | 2006-12-31 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRRWLD |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
06CW0121, CA4952.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06CW0121 | 3 | 2006-12-31 | S |
CA4952 | 1 | 1939-02-11 | 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 74 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 74 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 366 | 15th lowest of 15 · 495% of median | 98 | 5.7 |
| 2011 | 97 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 35 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 12 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 13 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 1 | 4th lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 29 | 0.1 |
| 2015 | 345 | 14th lowest of 15 · 466% of median | 56 | 5.5 |
| 2016 | 32 | 6th lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 17 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 168 | 11th lowest of 15 · 227% of median | 46 | 4.0 |
| 2019 | 92 | 9th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 36 | 2.5 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 12 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 13 | 5th lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 25 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 271 | 12th lowest of 15 · 366% of median | 71 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 333 | 13th lowest of 15 · 450% of median | 64 | 5.5 |
| 2024 | 44 | 7th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 11 | 2.8 |
| 2025 | 74 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 27 | 1.6 |
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 | 1891 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 25% of the irrigation seasons in 1990-2025 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.