Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GUYSELMAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600646 · 1 · CATARACT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 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 1904-06-01 — 217th most senior of the 1247 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: PEABODY NO 1 SEGMENT 4 BLUE RIVER (1904-05-23). Immediately behind: PHILLIPS DITCH (1904-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19875.0 | 1904-06-01 | 1910-03-02 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 155 |
| 32293.0 | 1938-06-01 | 1952-03-10 | 3.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 347 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1805, CA1277.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1805 | 2 | 1952-03-10 | S |
CA1277 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | 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 1,420 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 876 AF — 62% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1,598 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 172 | 7.2 |
| 2010 | 1,021 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 96 | 8.2 |
| 2012 | 2,374 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 214 | 6.8 |
| 2013 | 2,439 | 15th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 200 | 6.8 |
| 2014 | 1,534 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 155 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 1,901 | 13th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 147 | 10.6 |
| 2016 | 1,420 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 140 | 6.8 |
| 2017 | 1,095 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 143 | 6.8 |
| 2018 | 1,731 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 174 | 10.6 |
| 2019 | 1,365 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 117 | 7.4 |
| 2020 | 1,127 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 126 | 7.4 |
| 2021 | 1,311 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 158 | 6.8 |
| 2022 | 610 | 1st lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 100 | 6.2 |
| 2023 | 1,499 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 149 | 7.3 |
| 2024 | 876 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 131 | 6.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-63 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6560 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% of the irrigation seasons in 1966-2024 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.