Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BAKER AND BOWDISH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7000505 · 1 · CONN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:58 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1884-04-13 — 3rd most senior of the 519 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: RESERVOIR DITCH (1884-02-28). Immediately behind: CONWELL DITCH (1884-04-13).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12522.0 | 1884-04-13 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 23 |
| 13190.0 | 1886-02-10 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 52 |
| 13191.0 | 1886-02-11 | 1889-05-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 53 |
| 23569.15432 | 1892-04-01 | 1914-12-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 23569.19858 | 1904-05-15 | 1914-12-19 | 0.24 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 153A |
| 23569.23514 | 1914-05-19 | 1914-12-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 25837.12522 | 1884-04-13 | 1921-07-18 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | DOM | |
| 25837.13191 | 1886-02-11 | 1921-07-18 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | DOM | DOM2 |
| 27132.27059 | 1924-02-01 | 1937-01-11 | 6.38 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181PP |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
W1873, CA3102, CA2178, CA1742, CA0103.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1873 | 6 | 1937-01-11 | O, S |
CA3102 | 1 | 1937-01-11 | S |
CA2178 | 1 | 1921-07-18 | S |
CA1742 | 1 | 1914-12-19 | S |
CA0103 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | 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 471 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 502 AF — 107% of that, and 9th 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 | 719 | 11th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 319 | 2.0 |
| 2010 | 1,031 | 15th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 365 | 2.5 |
| 2011 | 833 | 12th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 273 | 2.8 |
| 2012 | 471 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 255 | 1.1 |
| 2013 | 294 | 5th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 304 | 0.5 |
| 2014 | 286 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 167 | 1.1 |
| 2015 | 372 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 195 | 1.3 |
| 2016 | 590 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 217 | 3.6 |
| 2017 | 400 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 153 | 1.8 |
| 2018 | 78 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 101 | 0.6 |
| 2019 | 918 | 14th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 276 | 4.2 |
| 2020 | 143 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 164 | 0.7 |
| 2022 | 21 | 1st lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 27 | 0.4 |
| 2024 | 869 | 13th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 202 | 2.8 |
| 2025 | 502 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 157 | 2.0 |
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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11792 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1971-2025 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.