Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ACME DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900501 · 1 · CASTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:01 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 1897-06-22 — 200th most senior of the 2360 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: HIDER DITCH (1897-05-01). Immediately behind: TEED DITCH (1897-06-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17340.0 | 1897-06-22 | 1906-09-14 | 11.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 115 |
| 18902.0 | 1901-10-02 | 1906-09-14 | 13.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 149 |
| 30667.1734 | 1897-06-22 | 1941-04-29 | 46.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 365 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2021, 92CW0079, CA1325, 05CW0264.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2021 | 2 | 1941-04-29 | S |
92CW0079 | 1 | 1941-04-29 | S |
CA1325 | 2 | 1906-09-14 | O |
05CW0264 | 2 | 1906-09-14 | 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 2,254 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,887 AF — 84% of that, and 4th 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 | 9,111 | 15th lowest of 15 · 404% of median | 169 | 57.5 |
| 2012 | 1,653 | 1st lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 171 | 20.0 |
| 2013 | 4,820 | 14th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | 162 | 47.0 |
| 2014 | 3,325 | 13th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 157 | 30.0 |
| 2015 | 1,755 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 146 | 14.8 |
| 2016 | 3,121 | 12th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 140 | 29.7 |
| 2017 | 2,212 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 134 | 21.2 |
| 2018 | 2,325 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 168 | 18.5 |
| 2019 | 2,025 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 157 | 12.6 |
| 2020 | 2,254 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 166 | 13.3 |
| 2021 | 1,777 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 173 | 19.3 |
| 2022 | 2,619 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 96 | 28.0 |
| 2023 | 2,296 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 119 | 27.0 |
| 2024 | 2,205 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 139 | 16.0 |
| 2025 | 1,887 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 104 | 18.9 |
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 | 6299 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 58% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.