Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CATARACT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4400573 · 1 · LITTLE BEAR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1908-06-23 — 443rd most senior of the 3562 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: DRESCHER RES (1904-10-10). Immediately behind: HART DITCH (1891-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28102.21358 | 1908-06-23 | 1928-05-31 | 7.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 121C |
| 28102.22808 | 1912-06-12 | 1928-05-31 | 2.46 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 121K |
| 36295.3605 | 1948-09-13 | 1960-09-01 | 10.94 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 60 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1278, 84CW0071, 05/31/1928.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1278 | 2 | 1960-09-01 | S |
84CW0071 | 1 | 1960-09-01 | S |
05/31/1928 | 2 | 1928-05-31 | 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 435 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 610 AF — 140% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 384 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 28 | 9.2 |
| 2011 | 471 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 29 | 11.6 |
| 2012 | 237 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 16 | 10.2 |
| 2013 | 284 | 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 25 | 7.1 |
| 2014 | 480 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 36 | 11.6 |
| 2015 | 1,024 | 15th lowest of 15 · 235% of median | 55 | 14.6 |
| 2016 | 412 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 71 | 8.5 |
| 2017 | 608 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 39 | 12.3 |
| 2018 | 250 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 24 | 7.1 |
| 2020 | 435 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 34 | 15.1 |
| 2021 | 226 | 1st lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 24 | 7.8 |
| 2022 | 696 | 14th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 40 | 18.9 |
| 2023 | 650 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 48 | 15.1 |
| 2024 | 429 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 29 | 16.9 |
| 2025 | 610 | 12th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 43 | 17.1 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4140 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2025 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.