Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ALTENBERN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7000500 · 1 · CARR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:31 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 1917-04-01 — 84th most senior of the 519 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: MEADOWS DITCH (1916-04-01). Immediately behind: H SCOTT DITCH (1917-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27132.24562 | 1917-04-01 | 1937-01-11 | 0.36 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 176 |
| 27132.27059 | 1924-02-01 | 1937-01-11 | 2.22 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181I |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0019, CA3102.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0019 | 1 | 1937-01-11 | S |
CA3102 | 3 | 1937-01-11 | 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 772 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 215 AF — 28% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 1,186 | 10th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 103 | 6.8 |
| 2007 | 1,466 | 13th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 105 | 9.3 |
| 2008 | 1,420 | 12th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 174 | 9.9 |
| 2009 | 613 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 86 | 6.8 |
| 2010 | 1,030 | 9th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 101 | 7.8 |
| 2011 | 1,555 | 14th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 176 | 5.8 |
| 2012 | 604 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 83 | 5.7 |
| 2015 | 64 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 66 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 371 | 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 99 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 1,301 | 11th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 179 | 8.0 |
| 2020 | 147 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 29 | 3.6 |
| 2022 | 619 | 7th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 53 | 6.0 |
| 2023 | 2,845 | 15th lowest of 15 · 368% of median | 158 | 12.0 |
| 2024 | 772 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 127 | 5.4 |
| 2025 | 215 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 70 | 1.6 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5159 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 46% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2025 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.