Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
A KATZENSTEIN NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1300859 · 1 · TAYLOR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:15 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 1872-06-01 — 76th most senior of the 1017 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: THOMAS BALMAN DITCH NO 1 (1872-05-31). Immediately behind: SHARP-FOSTER DITCH (1872-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8188.0 | 1872-06-01 | 1896-03-12 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 44 |
| 11383.0 | 1881-03-01 | 1896-03-12 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 282A |
| 12996.0 | 1885-07-31 | 1896-03-12 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 397 |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W4321, 95CW0009, 16CW0003, 03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W4321 | 3 | 1896-03-12 | O |
95CW0009 | 3 | 1896-03-12 | O |
16CW0003 | 6 | 1896-03-12 | O |
03/12/1896 | 3 | 1896-03-12 | 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 91 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 71 AF — 78% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 121 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 144 | 1.8 |
| 2011 | 44 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 60 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 48 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 61 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 145 | 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 137 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 95 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 115 | 0.7 |
| 2015 | 138 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 131 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 122 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 135 | 1.2 |
| 2017 | 140 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 135 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 21 | 1st lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 27 | 0.8 |
| 2019 | 91 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 89 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | 24 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 30 | 1.8 |
| 2021 | 93 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 106 | 0.6 |
| 2022 | 72 | 7th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 91 | 0.8 |
| 2023 | 63 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 81 | 0.5 |
| 2024 | 71 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 89 | 0.6 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3408 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2024 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.