Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HIGHLINE BEAVER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800687 · 1 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:19 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 1891-06-22 — 142nd most senior of the 3097 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: TIMBERS AUG PLAN (1891-06-01). Immediately behind: STILLWTER CG (1891-10-16).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15148.0 | 1891-06-22 | 1892-09-22 | 11.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFIS | (98)100 |
| 19630.16932 | 1896-05-10 | 1904-09-19 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 136A |
| 54296.0 | 1998-08-28 | 1998-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMDOM |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
98CW0039, 06CW0016, 84CW0071, 09/19/1904, 09/22/1892, 01CW0108.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0039 | 2 | 1998-12-31 | S |
06CW0016 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
84CW0071 | 1 | 1904-09-19 | S |
09/19/1904 | 2 | 1904-09-19 | S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
01CW0108 | 2 | 1892-09-22 | 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 290 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 143 AF — 49% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 229 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 127 | 2.9 |
| 2012 | 207 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 105 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 422 | 10th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 170 | 4.4 |
| 2014 | 732 | 11th lowest of 15 · 252% of median | 174 | 8.0 |
| 2015 | 388 | 9th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 165 | 6.6 |
| 2016 | 1,787 | 15th lowest of 15 · 616% of median | 166 | 7.0 |
| 2017 | 1,564 | 14th lowest of 15 · 539% of median | 152 | 8.0 |
| 2018 | 820 | 12th lowest of 15 · 283% of median | 125 | 5.5 |
| 2019 | 937 | 13th lowest of 15 · 323% of median | 136 | 6.5 |
| 2020 | 207 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 158 | 1.9 |
| 2021 | 290 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 156 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 263 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 130 | 2.1 |
| 2023 | 199 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 120 | 2.1 |
| 2024 | 201 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 163 | 2.2 |
| 2025 | 143 | 1st lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 59 | 2.6 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8807 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 48% of the irrigation seasons in 1939-2025 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.