Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BEEBE CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 0200517 · DITCH · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:52 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (0576005) — 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.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at LOWER LATHAM DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1877-11-14).
● Fully called out — call at WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1871-08-09).
● Fully called out — call at HARMONY DITCH 1 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1897-05-02).
● Fully called out — call at SOUTH PLATTE RIVER COMPACT (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1897-06-13).
● Fully called out — call at LOWER PLATTE BEAVER D (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1888-04-14).
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 2019-04-17 — 21286th most senior of the 21881 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: 0200654 (2019-03-29). Immediately behind: 0200622 (2019-04-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61833.0 | 2019-04-17 | 2019-12-31 | 0.0 | 4170.0 | A | RCH | |
| 61833.0 | 2019-04-17 | 2019-12-31 | 0.0 | 20.0 | C | RCH |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
19CW3075, 19CW3074.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
19CW3075 | 1 | 2019-12-31 | S |
19CW3074 | 1 | 2019-12-31 | 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 12,919 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 11,233 AF — 87% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 97 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 9 | 6.8 |
| 2012 | 2,609 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 177 | 29.9 |
| 2013 | 4,912 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 353 | 28.7 |
| 2014 | 29,996 | 15th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 365 | 167.4 |
| 2015 | 15,082 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 365 | 66.5 |
| 2016 | 13,022 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 366 | 58.9 |
| 2017 | 16,708 | 13th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 365 | 76.4 |
| 2018 | 17,500 | 14th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 365 | 106.7 |
| 2019 | 13,131 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 356 | 99.3 |
| 2020 | 10,618 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 359 | 72.0 |
| 2021 | 12,467 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 365 | 65.3 |
| 2022 | 7,872 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 365 | 49.7 |
| 2023 | 12,919 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 66.7 |
| 2024 | 16,094 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 366 | 64.0 |
| 2025 | 11,233 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 304 | 61.3 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5424 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 2007-2025 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.