Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BIEBEL NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900519 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:48 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 1880-04-10 — 25th 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: EAST WILSON DITCH (1880-04-01). Immediately behind: TEACHOUT DITCH (1880-04-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11058.0 | 1880-04-10 | 1906-09-14 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 16 |
| 30667.11058 | 1880-04-10 | 1941-04-29 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 288 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA5676, CA2021, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5676 | 4 | 1941-04-29 | O, S |
CA2021 | 1 | 1941-04-29 | S |
CA1325 | 1 | 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 867 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 316 AF — 36% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 465 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 92 | 7.1 |
| 2012 | 1,273 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 157 | 6.5 |
| 2013 | 1,038 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 113 | 10.0 |
| 2014 | 932 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 71 | 9.4 |
| 2015 | 1,297 | 14th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 105 | 13.9 |
| 2016 | 1,020 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 68 | 10.0 |
| 2017 | 1,757 | 15th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 87 | 18.0 |
| 2018 | 850 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 66 | 11.6 |
| 2019 | 962 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 33 | 17.3 |
| 2020 | 54 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 31 | 1.1 |
| 2021 | 572 | 6th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 39 | 8.5 |
| 2022 | 353 | 4th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 36 | 10.6 |
| 2023 | 282 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 47 | 3.4 |
| 2024 | 867 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 62 | 8.9 |
| 2025 | 316 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 67 | 4.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-63 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 3441 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1977-2025 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.