Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
H AND S DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500616 · 1 · CACHE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:49 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 1884-11-20 — 26th 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: BATTLEMENT DITCH (1884-06-12). Immediately behind: MESA DITCH (1885-02-23).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12743.0 | 1884-11-20 | 1888-05-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 13454.0 | 1886-11-01 | 1888-05-05 | 2.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 61 |
| 13583.0 | 1887-03-10 | 1888-05-05 | 3.54 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 18578.15982 | 1893-10-03 | 1900-11-24 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 19544.12743 | 1884-11-20 | 1903-11-12 | 0.83 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | |
| 21523.18779 | 1901-06-01 | 1909-02-10 | 2.14 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 23475.20544 | 1906-04-01 | 1914-04-21 | 0.22 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 24551.21731 | 1909-07-01 | 1917-03-26 | 0.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA3357.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3357 | 10 | 1917-03-26 | O, 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 1,245 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,441 AF — 116% 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 | 1,048 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 301 | 9.5 |
| 2011 | 1,876 | 13th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 299 | 12.4 |
| 2012 | 893 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 197 | 8.0 |
| 2013 | 1,090 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 295 | 8.5 |
| 2014 | 1,382 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 342 | 12.0 |
| 2015 | 1,314 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 321 | 10.6 |
| 2016 | 1,191 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 304 | 11.2 |
| 2017 | 1,245 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 321 | 8.5 |
| 2018 | 652 | 1st lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 221 | 8.0 |
| 2019 | 1,904 | 14th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 338 | 11.3 |
| 2020 | 925 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 281 | 7.9 |
| 2021 | 974 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 288 | 7.9 |
| 2022 | 1,388 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 307 | 12.0 |
| 2023 | 2,156 | 15th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 340 | 12.0 |
| 2024 | 1,441 | 12th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 245 | 12.0 |
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15019 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% 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.