Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RHEA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700853 · 1 · BEAVER 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 1886-12-31 — 92nd most senior of the 1262 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: VICTOR DITCH (1886-06-30). Immediately behind: CUMBERLAND DITCH (1887-04-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13514.0 | 1886-12-31 | 1923-03-06 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-1 |
| 33534.13654 | 1887-05-20 | 1958-01-10 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 741 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0511, CA3571.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0511 | 1 | 1958-01-10 | S |
CA3571 | 1 | 1923-03-06 | 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 1,146 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,979 AF — 173% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 507 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 40 | 8.0 |
| 2010 | 1,534 | 11th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 60 | 18.2 |
| 2012 | 1,146 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 119 | 6.8 |
| 2013 | 437 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 37 | 8.5 |
| 2014 | 422 | 1st lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 47 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 1,101 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 39 | 15.0 |
| 2016 | 618 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 51 | 6.5 |
| 2017 | 1,184 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 152 | 6.3 |
| 2018 | 1,470 | 10th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 80 | 12.8 |
| 2019 | 1,744 | 12th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 47 | 29.6 |
| 2020 | 723 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 67 | 7.0 |
| 2021 | 1,083 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 48 | 12.0 |
| 2022 | 3,785 | 15th lowest of 15 · 330% of median | 118 | 35.5 |
| 2023 | 3,074 | 14th lowest of 15 · 268% of median | 94 | 28.3 |
| 2024 | 1,979 | 13th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 151 | 16.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+98 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2949 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 25% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.