Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
C AND L HIGHLINE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800568 · 1 · CATTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:35 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 1884-05-01 — 116th most senior of the 4788 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: MIDDLE DITCH WELL (1884-04-17). Immediately behind: H C AND L DITCH (1884-05-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12540.0 | 1884-05-01 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 85 |
| 12590.0 | 1884-06-20 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 97 |
| 12985.0 | 1885-07-20 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 131 |
| 14046.0 | 1888-06-15 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 193 |
| 14054.0 | 1888-06-23 | 1889-05-11 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 199 |
| 53631.0 | 1996-11-01 | 1996-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
96CW0381, 03CW0216, W0311, CA0132, 96CW0378.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0381 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
03CW0216 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
W0311 | 5 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA0132 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | O |
96CW0378 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | 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 154 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 257 AF — 167% of that, and 12th lowest of the 15 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 154 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 55 | 2.7 |
| 2010 | 143 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 48 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 269 | 14th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | — | 46 | 4.1 |
| 2013 | 26 | 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median | — | 12 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 229 | 11th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | — | 87 | 3.0 |
| 2015 | 43 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | — | 24 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 273 | 15th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | — | 87 | 3.2 |
| 2017 | 206 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | — | 85 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 258 | 13th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | — | 106 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 196 | 9th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | — | 123 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 76 | 4th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | — | 57 | 1.3 |
| 2021 | 95 | 6th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | — | 81 | 1.1 |
| 2022 | 84 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 7 | 93 | 1.0 |
| 2023 | 62 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 4 | 132 | 0.8 |
| 2024 | 257 | 12th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 15 | 159 | 2.0 |
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 (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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5620 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2024 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.