Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TAUGHENBAUGH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500793 · 1 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 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 1885-07-28 — 32nd 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: WARD AND REYNOLDS DITCH (1885-05-17). Immediately behind: HOLMES DITCH (1885-08-02).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12993.0 | 1885-07-28 | 1888-05-05 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 34 |
| 13576.0 | 1887-03-03 | 1888-05-05 | 8.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 66 |
| 18881.0 | 1901-09-11 | 1902-02-24 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 123 |
| 19047.18881 | 1901-09-11 | 1902-06-02 | 4.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 124 |
| 44925.36159 | 1948-12-31 | 1973-12-31 | 16.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W2180, CA1127, CA0955, CA0934, CA0089, 05/05/1888.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2180 | 3 | 1973-12-31 | S |
CA1127 | 2 | 1905-06-10 | S |
CA0955 | 1 | 1902-06-02 | S |
CA0934 | 1 | 1902-02-24 | S |
CA0089 | 3 | 1888-05-05 | O |
05/05/1888 | 2 | 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 1,257 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,432 AF — 114% of that, and 9th 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 | 1,006 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 111 | 18.1 |
| 2011 | 3,033 | 15th lowest of 15 · 241% of median | 207 | 32.6 |
| 2012 | 701 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 124 | 10.0 |
| 2013 | 1,046 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 298 | 18.8 |
| 2014 | 1,689 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 316 | 32.6 |
| 2015 | 1,433 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 223 | 25.1 |
| 2016 | 1,462 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 240 | 21.0 |
| 2017 | 1,257 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 177 | 17.0 |
| 2018 | 539 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 99 | 15.0 |
| 2019 | 2,628 | 13th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 201 | 32.6 |
| 2020 | 361 | 1st lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 196 | 7.7 |
| 2021 | 450 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 231 | 7.0 |
| 2022 | 1,226 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 193 | 20.3 |
| 2023 | 2,887 | 14th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 249 | 20.0 |
| 2024 | 1,432 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 199 | 24.0 |
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 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 | 6612 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% 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.