Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAR ELEVEN NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6500500 · 1 · NORTH FORK REPUBLICAN RI · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:24 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 1888-04-26 — 3rd most senior of the 112 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: HAYES CREEK DITCH (1888-03-01). Immediately behind: BAR 11 NO 2 DITCH ALT PT (1888-04-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13996.0 | 1888-04-26 | 1912-07-03 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0872, 84CW0131, 02CW0374.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0872 | 1 | 1912-07-03 | O |
84CW0131 | 1 | 1912-07-03 | O |
02CW0374 | 1 | 1912-07-03 | 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 295 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1990, came in at 295 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 123 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 44 | 2.0 |
| 1974 | 258 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 58 | 4.0 |
| 1975 | 393 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 111 | 4.0 |
| 1976 | 618 | 13th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 133 | 3.0 |
| 1979 | 902 | 15th lowest of 15 · 306% of median | 127 | 7.0 |
| 1980 | 840 | 14th lowest of 15 · 285% of median | 80 | 7.0 |
| 1981 | 305 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 107 | 7.0 |
| 1982 | 403 | 12th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 122 | 7.0 |
| 1983 | 111 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 11 | 7.0 |
| 1984 | 222 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 18 | 7.0 |
| 1986 | 258 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 53 | 5.0 |
| 1987 | 225 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 78 | 3.5 |
| 1988 | 250 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 65 | 3.5 |
| 1989 | 320 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 84 | 3.5 |
| 1990 | 295 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 64 | 3.5 |
Call-derived yield: senior right divertible 32.9% of a median season / 3.3% dry-year.
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2217 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1952-1990 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.