Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BEAVER DAM DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000954 · 1 · MINNESOTA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:58 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 1883-05-05 — 45th 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: PAONIA PIPELINE (MAYS SPRING) (1883-05-01). Immediately behind: CLOUGH DITCH (1883-05-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12178.0 | 1883-05-05 | 1889-06-17 | 0.54 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOM | 1 |
| 14413.12283 | 1883-08-18 | 1901-04-12 | 0.05 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 7 |
| 14413.12285 | 1883-08-20 | 1901-04-12 | 0.03 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 8 |
| 21263.18416 | 1900-06-03 | 1914-06-23 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A59 |
| 25807.23557 | 1914-07-01 | 1930-02-10 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | G84 |
| 59944.0 | 2014-02-13 | 2014-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
14CW3004, CA2030, CA0617, CA0886, CA0567.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
14CW3004 | 2 | 2014-12-31 | O, S |
CA2030 | 1 | 1930-02-10 | S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | S |
CA0886 | 3 | 1901-04-12 | O, S |
CA0567 | 1 | 1889-06-17 | 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 238 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 331 AF — 139% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 428 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | — | 365 | 2.2 |
| 2011 | 423 | 14th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | — | 281 | 4.9 |
| 2012 | 227 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 186 | 1.3 |
| 2013 | 238 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 186 | 2.2 |
| 2014 | 267 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 365 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 178 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | — | 365 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 248 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 305 | 1.6 |
| 2017 | 228 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | — | 231 | 1.6 |
| 2018 | 121 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | — | 365 | 0.4 |
| 2019 | 284 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | — | 301 | 2.0 |
| 2020 | 106 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | — | 179 | 0.6 |
| 2021 | 90 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | — | 172 | 0.6 |
| 2022 | 192 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | — | 241 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 407 | 13th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | — | 365 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 331 | 12th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | — | 305 | 1.2 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12690 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.