Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CATLIN CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 1700552 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:57 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 1875-04-10 — 5th most senior of the 1909 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: ROCKY FORD DITCH (1874-05-15). Immediately behind: LAS ANIMAS CONSOLIDATED (1875-04-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9231.0 | 1875-04-10 | 1905-04-08 | 22.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNDOMAUGCUR | 2 |
| 12756.0 | 1884-12-03 | 1905-04-08 | 226.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNDOMAUGCUR | 5 |
| 13832.0 | 1887-11-14 | 1905-04-08 | 97.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRMUNDOMAUGCUR | 7 |
Legal record & documents
38 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
10CW0004, 06CW0008, CA0689, 12CW0094, 09CW0035, 07/11/1905, 06CW0049, 04/08/1905.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10CW0004 | 5 | 2010-12-31 | S |
06CW0008 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
CA0689 | 4 | 1905-04-08 | O |
12CW0094 | 6 | 1905-04-08 | O |
09CW0035 | 6 | 1905-04-08 | O |
07/11/1905 | 2 | 1905-04-08 | O |
06CW0049 | 12 | 1905-04-08 | O |
04/08/1905 | 2 | 1905-04-08 | 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 93,956 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 129,274 AF — 138% of that, and 15th 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 | 93,956 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 215 | 347.0 |
| 2012 | 36,130 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 120 | 260.0 |
| 2013 | 75,729 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 195 | 323.0 |
| 2014 | 98,434 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 256 | 331.0 |
| 2015 | 106,392 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 247 | 316.1 |
| 2016 | 107,320 | 13th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 248 | 311.2 |
| 2017 | 100,569 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 263 | 328.6 |
| 2018 | 84,953 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 246 | 308.0 |
| 2019 | 98,349 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 247 | 334.1 |
| 2020 | 88,209 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 247 | 365.9 |
| 2021 | 75,820 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 193 | 345.0 |
| 2022 | 82,063 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 253 | 348.0 |
| 2023 | 80,784 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 319 | 344.0 |
| 2024 | 118,615 | 14th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 248 | 349.2 |
| 2025 | 129,274 | 15th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 233 | 564.6 |
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 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 | 32871 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1910-2025 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.