Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STERLING IRR CO DITCH 2
Structure dossier · WDID 6400526 · 1 · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:05 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 1884-06-07 — 62nd most senior of the 2052 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: STIEB WELL 2 (1883-10-01). Immediately behind: SONNENBERG W 27-016693-F (1884-06-07).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12577.0 | 1884-06-07 | 1894-11-15 | 43.54 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOM |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W8490, W7441, CA0304, 00CW0253.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W8490 | 2 | 1894-11-15 | O |
W7441 | 1 | 1894-11-15 | O |
CA0304 | 1 | 1894-11-15 | O |
00CW0253 | 2 | 1894-11-15 | 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 1,488 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1998, came in at 892 AF — 60% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1984 | 1,511 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 366 | 4.3 |
| 1985 | 1,421 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 365 | 5.9 |
| 1986 | 1,325 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 365 | 3.5 |
| 1987 | 1,522 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 365 | 4.9 |
| 1988 | 1,718 | 15th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 366 | 6.0 |
| 1989 | 1,462 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 365 | 3.6 |
| 1990 | 1,419 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 365 | 3.2 |
| 1991 | 1,387 | 4th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 304 | 3.4 |
| 1992 | 180 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 61 | 1.5 |
| 1993 | 1,488 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 3.5 |
| 1994 | 1,667 | 14th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 365 | 3.8 |
| 1995 | 1,664 | 13th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 365 | 4.0 |
| 1996 | 1,589 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 366 | 3.8 |
| 1997 | 1,640 | 12th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 365 | 3.4 |
| 1998 | 892 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 304 | 2.1 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7690 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 74% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-1998 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.