Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EUREKA NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800667 · 1 · CATTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:01 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 1882-06-15 — 53rd 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: LEMOND DITCH (1882-06-07). Immediately behind: LEWIS DITCH (1882-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11854.0 | 1882-06-15 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG | 39 |
| 24059.21458 | 1908-10-01 | 1916-03-15 | 9.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 227AA |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1397, W3496.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1397 | 1 | 1916-03-15 | S |
W3496 | 1 | 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 350 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 183 AF — 52% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 312 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 37 | 5.2 |
| 2004 | 81 | 1st lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 14 | 5.0 |
| 2005 | 335 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 47 | 8.0 |
| 2006 | 127 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 21 | 5.7 |
| 2008 | 720 | 14th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 102 | 7.7 |
| 2009 | 304 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 49 | 6.2 |
| 2010 | 350 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 29 | 9.0 |
| 2011 | 462 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 39 | 6.7 |
| 2013 | 353 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 33 | 7.0 |
| 2014 | 459 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 41 | 8.0 |
| 2015 | 545 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 49 | 6.0 |
| 2016 | 350 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38 | 5.5 |
| 2017 | 219 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 25 | 5.7 |
| 2019 | 988 | 15th lowest of 15 · 282% of median | 66 | 8.0 |
| 2020 | 183 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 19 | 5.5 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2344 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 16% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2020 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.