Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BUEHLER NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100541 · 1 · BATTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:24 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 1905-12-31 — 305th most senior of the 2208 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: STANLEY DITCH (1903-12-31). Immediately behind: EDNA SHORE DITCH (1911-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23817.20453 | 1905-12-31 | 1917-08-11 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDFIRDOMAUGTMX | 325 |
| 54345.0 | 1998-10-16 | 1998-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRRECFISAUGWLD |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
98CW0293, 98CW0292, CA0304, 96CW3681.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0293 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
98CW0292 | 2 | 1998-12-31 | S |
CA0304 | 1 | 1917-08-11 | S |
96CW3681 | 2 | 1917-08-11 | 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 40 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 22 AF — 55% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 56 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 67 | 0.5 |
| 1998 | 27 | 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 30 | 0.5 |
| 1999 | 40 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 53 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 43 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 56 | 0.5 |
| 2001 | 26 | 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 39 | 0.5 |
| 2002 | 19 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 36 | 0.3 |
| 2004 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 29 | 0.2 |
| 2005 | 30 | 7th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 129 | 0.4 |
| 2006 | 48 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 73 | 0.6 |
| 2007 | 58 | 14th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 66 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 67 | 15th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 66 | 0.8 |
| 2009 | 43 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 34 | 0.8 |
| 2010 | 26 | 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 27 | 0.5 |
| 2011 | 48 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 40 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 22 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 44 | 0.4 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1277 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 16% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2012 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.