Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PALMER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200818 · 1 · BIG CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:08 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 1887-08-29 — 56th most senior of the 2166 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: MCCABE DITCH (1887-06-10). Immediately behind: TEMS DITCH (1887-09-14).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13755.0 | 1887-08-29 | 1890-02-07 | 11.23 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 40 |
| 30895.12311 | 1883-09-15 | 1941-07-25 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | |
| 34419.12311 | 1883-09-15 | 1959-07-21 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA8303, CA5812, CA2635, CA0273.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA5812 | 1 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA2635 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | 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 4,039 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 3,729 AF — 92% of that, and 4th 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 | 4,329 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 304 | 18.4 |
| 2011 | 3,590 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 209 | 15.6 |
| 2012 | 4,600 | 15th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 305 | 11.4 |
| 2013 | 3,301 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 156 | 15.0 |
| 2014 | 3,769 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 223 | 17.3 |
| 2015 | 4,490 | 12th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 343 | 18.2 |
| 2016 | 4,253 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 360 | 19.8 |
| 2017 | 4,546 | 13th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 365 | 17.3 |
| 2018 | 3,128 | 1st lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 365 | 11.3 |
| 2019 | 4,582 | 14th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 360 | 22.2 |
| 2020 | 4,039 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 11.3 |
| 2021 | 3,852 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 365 | 11.3 |
| 2022 | 3,969 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 365 | 12.4 |
| 2023 | 4,326 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 365 | 18.9 |
| 2024 | 3,729 | 4th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 305 | 13.5 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 14510 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.