Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CEDAR MESA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000675 · 1 · SURFACE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:34 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 1894-09-15 — 1147th most senior of the 4661 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: YOUNGS CREEK RESERVOIR NO. 2 (1894-09-09). Immediately behind: CABIN LAKE RESERVOIR (1894-09-15).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20501.16329 | 1894-09-15 | 1907-09-28 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 36 |
| 21263.16329 | 1894-09-15 | 1914-06-23 | 16.075 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A32 |
| 31924.16329 | 1894-09-15 | 1954-03-20 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | J53 |
| 54056.16436 | 1894-12-31 | 1998-12-31 | 24.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
98CW0030, CA3503, CA0617, CA0457.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0030 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
CA3503 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | S |
CA0457 | 1 | 1907-09-28 | 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 3,012 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,690 AF — 56% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 3,012 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 0 | 166 | 22.0 |
| 2011 | 4,074 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | — | 161 | 31.0 |
| 2012 | 1,528 | 5th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | — | 136 | 14.7 |
| 2013 | 889 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | — | 82 | 14.7 |
| 2014 | 3,190 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 222 | 37.0 |
| 2015 | 3,573 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | — | 277 | 25.0 |
| 2016 | 4,003 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | — | 197 | 49.3 |
| 2017 | 4,588 | 13th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | — | 182 | 36.8 |
| 2018 | 732 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | — | 76 | 12.8 |
| 2019 | 5,493 | 14th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | — | 187 | 50.0 |
| 2020 | 1,362 | 4th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | — | 123 | 10.7 |
| 2021 | 943 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 31% of median | — | 100 | 8.0 |
| 2022 | 2,782 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | — | 183 | 22.0 |
| 2023 | 5,686 | 15th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | — | 176 | 35.7 |
| 2024 | 1,690 | 6th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 153 | 13.2 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10938 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 94% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.