Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CASTLE CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700899 · 1 · EBY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:19 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 1884-11-19 — 147th most senior of the 2162 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: MOORE PUMP STATION (1884-06-20). Immediately behind: CASTLE CR DITCH ALT PT A (1884-11-19).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16251.12742 | 1884-11-19 | 1901-03-05 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 139 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0385, 92CW0113.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0385 | 1 | 1901-03-05 | S |
92CW0113 | 2 | 1901-03-05 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 41 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 141 AF — 344% of that, and 10th lowest of the 12 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 102 | 8th lowest of 12 · 249% of median | — | 59 | 1.2 |
| 1997 | 119 | 9th lowest of 12 · 290% of median | — | 120 | 1.7 |
| 1998 | 39 | 6th lowest of 12 · 95% of median | — | 100 | 0.3 |
| 1999 | — | no recorded volume | 56 | 0 | — |
| 2000 | 30 | 5th lowest of 12 · 73% of median | — | 47 | 0.4 |
| 2001 | 43 | 7th lowest of 12 · 105% of median | — | 93 | 0.7 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 20 | 4th lowest of 12 · 49% of median | — | 42 | 0.3 |
| 2004 | 10 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 24% of median | — | 21 | 0.2 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 297 | 12th lowest of 12 · 724% of median | — | 146 | 1.9 |
| 2015 | 284 | 11th lowest of 12 · 693% of median | — | 163 | 1.5 |
| 2023 | 141 | 10th lowest of 12 · 344% of median | — | 51 | 1.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 844 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 15% of the irrigation seasons in 1996-2023 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.