Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CAPITOL FALLS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800572 · 1 · CAPITOL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:24 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 1898-09-29 — 272nd 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: RED ROCK BLUFF DITCH (1901-10-25). Immediately behind: MCCABE DITCH (1898-09-29).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19306.17804 | 1898-09-29 | 1902-11-17 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 212A |
| 20109.18771 | 1901-05-24 | 1905-05-31 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 214AA |
| 24546.18771 | 1901-05-24 | 1917-03-19 | 4.18 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 214AA |
| 30941.25723 | 1920-06-05 | 1936-08-25 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 412A |
| 34485.0 | 1944-06-01 | 1949-08-25 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 473 |
| 56978.56541 | 2004-10-20 | 2006-12-31 | 0.0 | 1.0 | C | OTH |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
06CW0049, CA3723, CA3082, CA1907, CA0987, 06CW0175, CA1908.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06CW0049 | 1 | 2006-12-31 | S |
CA3723 | 2 | 1949-08-25 | S |
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA1907 | 1 | 1917-03-19 | S |
CA0987 | 2 | 1905-05-31 | S |
06CW0175 | 1 | 1905-05-31 | S |
CA1908 | 1 | 1902-11-17 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 1,979 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 139 AF — 7% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 1,510 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 118 | 14.3 |
| 1993 | 2,631 | 12th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 120 | 13.6 |
| 1994 | 1,761 | 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 127 | 9.2 |
| 1995 | 2,025 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 134 | 9.5 |
| 1996 | 2,812 | 13th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 126 | 14.0 |
| 1997 | 3,008 | 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 139 | 13.5 |
| 1998 | 3,058 | 15th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 139 | 13.0 |
| 1999 | 1,979 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 135 | 12.5 |
| 2001 | 1,035 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 117 | 4.5 |
| 2003 | 2,147 | 11th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 123 | 14.0 |
| 2006 | 1,269 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 123 | 6.0 |
| 2007 | 1,607 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 136 | 6.0 |
| 2008 | 1,083 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 118 | 6.0 |
| 2009 | 2,122 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 108 | 10.0 |
| 2024 | 139 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 102 | 0.7 |
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 | 4853 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% 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.