Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DAME DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500562 · 1 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:15 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 1884-05-02 — 22nd most senior of the 1378 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: HUNTER AND GANT DITCH (1884-04-26). Immediately behind: MOUNTAIN SHEEP DITCH (1884-05-02).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12541.0 | 1884-05-02 | 1888-05-05 | 0.833 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 23 |
| 13709.0 | 1887-07-14 | 1888-05-05 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 83 |
| 13842.0 | 1887-11-24 | 1888-05-05 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 99 |
| 21190.16004 | 1893-10-25 | 1908-05-18 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 117AAAAA |
| 21190.19297 | 1902-11-01 | 1908-05-18 | 1.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 126AA |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
CA1277, W3610, W3609, W2302, W2044, 94CW0007, 85CW0030.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1277 | 3 | 1908-05-18 | S |
W3610 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
W3609 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
W2302 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
W2044 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
94CW0007 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | O |
85CW0030 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | 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 264 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 312 AF — 118% of that, and 14th 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 | 269 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 177 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 279 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 196 | 1.6 |
| 2012 | 155 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 106 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 182 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 147 | 2.3 |
| 2014 | 297 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 222 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 297 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 200 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 244 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 153 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 228 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 134 | 2.8 |
| 2018 | 164 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 109 | 0.8 |
| 2019 | 400 | 15th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 175 | 4.0 |
| 2020 | 136 | 1st lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 97 | 0.8 |
| 2021 | 203 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 135 | 0.8 |
| 2022 | 264 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 168 | 2.8 |
| 2023 | 296 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 190 | 1.4 |
| 2024 | 312 | 14th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 187 | 1.8 |
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 (8/10 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6680 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 63% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.