Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CEDAR DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200566 · 1 · SALT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:49 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 1917-12-26 — 439th most senior of the 2166 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: BILLINGS DITCH NO 2 (1917-06-15). Immediately behind: HIGHTOWER DITCH (1918-06-11).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30895.24831 | 1917-12-26 | 1941-07-25 | 1.04 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 34419.33581 | 1941-12-10 | 1959-07-21 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 40013.33581 | 1941-12-10 | 1972-04-13 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 993 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA13368, CA8303, CA5812.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA13368 | 1 | 1972-04-13 | S |
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA5812 | 1 | 1941-07-25 | 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 244 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 407 AF — 167% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 276 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 87 | 4.6 |
| 2011 | 193 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 105 | 1.2 |
| 2012 | 455 | 15th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 130 | 3.6 |
| 2013 | 218 | 4th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 123 | 1.8 |
| 2014 | 331 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 100 | 2.9 |
| 2015 | 135 | 1st lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 95 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 227 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 131 | 2.1 |
| 2017 | 227 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 135 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 244 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 126 | 1.7 |
| 2019 | 317 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 119 | 3.2 |
| 2020 | 309 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 110 | 2.7 |
| 2021 | 189 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 131 | 3.3 |
| 2022 | 256 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 124 | 1.9 |
| 2023 | 240 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 83 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 407 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 112 | 3.2 |
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 | 8545 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 73% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.