Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NATAL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800900 · 1 · WOODY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:35 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 1915-06-01 — 598th 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: FINLEY HDGT NO. 3 (1915-05-01). Immediately behind: NATAL DITCH NPD (1915-06-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30941.23892 | 1915-06-01 | 1936-08-25 | 0.28 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 398 |
| 30941.24258 | 1916-06-01 | 1936-08-25 | 0.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 403I |
| 37085.0 | 1951-07-15 | 1952-10-24 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 626 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
03CW0323, CA3082, 98CW0294.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0323 | 1 | 1952-10-24 | S |
CA3082 | 2 | 1936-08-25 | S |
98CW0294 | 4 | 1936-08-25 | 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 101 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2011, came in at 17 AF — 17% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 205 | 12th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 119 | 0.9 |
| 1991 | 186 | 11th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 96 | 1.0 |
| 1992 | 330 | 15th lowest of 15 · 327% of median | 93 | 2.0 |
| 1993 | 315 | 14th lowest of 15 · 312% of median | 108 | 1.5 |
| 1994 | 184 | 10th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 50 | 2.0 |
| 1995 | 234 | 13th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 60 | 2.0 |
| 1996 | 101 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 52 | 1.0 |
| 1997 | 137 | 9th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 70 | 1.0 |
| 1998 | 91 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 52 | 0.9 |
| 1999 | 67 | 6th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 46 | 0.8 |
| 2002 | 64 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 29 | 1.3 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2010 | 5 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 13 | 0.3 |
| 2011 | 17 | 4th lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 18 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-13 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2231 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2011 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.