Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COMMISSIONER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100503 · 1 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:29 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 1868-07-25 — 66th most senior of the 1037 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: CEANABOO DITCH (1868-07-25). Immediately behind: DALE DITCH (1868-07-25).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6781.0 | 1868-07-25 | 1930-10-25 | 8.31 | 0.94 | C | IRRDOM | P-1 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA7736, CA1248.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA7736 | 2 | 1930-10-25 | O |
CA1248 | 1 | 1930-10-25 | 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 2,537 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,594 AF — 102% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 3,321 | 15th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 156 | 15.9 |
| 2005 | 2,648 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 157 | 15.1 |
| 2006 | 2,291 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 163 | 10.9 |
| 2007 | 2,322 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 154 | 12.0 |
| 2008 | 2,146 | 1st lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 149 | 9.0 |
| 2009 | 2,187 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 160 | 10.2 |
| 2010 | 2,537 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 161 | 11.6 |
| 2011 | 2,924 | 14th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 163 | 12.0 |
| 2012 | 2,761 | 12th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 148 | 12.0 |
| 2013 | 2,847 | 13th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 157 | 15.1 |
| 2014 | 2,557 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 154 | 12.8 |
| 2015 | 2,423 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 172 | 8.6 |
| 2016 | 2,243 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 153 | 9.1 |
| 2017 | 2,402 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 154 | 11.4 |
| 2025 | 2,594 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 187 | 9.0 |
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 B (8/10 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10299 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 64% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.