Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CAUGHMAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7000517 · 1 · KIMBALL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:35 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 1885-06-01 — 26th 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: CATARACT DITCH (1885-06-01). Immediately behind: A V AND D DITCH ALT NO 2 (1885-06-01).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12936.0 | 1885-06-01 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 13255.0 | 1886-04-16 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 13605.0 | 1887-04-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 57978.0 | 2008-09-26 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | RECFISAUGWLD | |
| 57978.0 | 2008-09-26 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.5 | C | RECFISAUGWLD |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
08CW0196, W0383, W0291, CA0103.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
08CW0196 | 2 | 2008-12-31 | S |
W0383 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | O |
W0291 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA0103 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | 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 477 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 237 AF — 50% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 187 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 64 | 1.5 |
| 1993 | 708 | 13th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 82 | 5.7 |
| 1994 | 309 | 6th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 78 | 2.0 |
| 1995 | 793 | 14th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 138 | 5.1 |
| 1996 | 477 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 175 | 1.8 |
| 1997 | 621 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 266 | 2.1 |
| 1998 | 483 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 154 | 3.3 |
| 1999 | 280 | 5th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 127 | 1.6 |
| 2006 | 350 | 7th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 118 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 580 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 98 | 3.4 |
| 2008 | 516 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 88 | 3.5 |
| 2009 | 80 | 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 36 | 1.2 |
| 2010 | 188 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 74 | 1.9 |
| 2011 | 1,585 | 15th lowest of 15 · 332% of median | 104 | 11.3 |
| 2019 | 237 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 51 | 3.0 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3737 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2019 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.