Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RAUMAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7204722 · 1 · MIDDLETON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:04 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 1910-01-12 — 243rd 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: TEAGUE DITCH (1910-01-12). Immediately behind: BUCKHORN DITCH (1910-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22995.21926 | 1910-01-12 | 1916-06-01 | 1.3662 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 22995.22071 | 1910-06-06 | 1916-06-01 | 1.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA9995, CA2635, 84CW0218.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA9995 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | S |
CA2635 | 2 | 1916-06-01 | S |
84CW0218 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | 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 133 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 155 AF — 116% of that, and 7th lowest of the 12 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | — | 2 | 0.0 |
| 1996 | 111 | 6th lowest of 12 · 84% of median | — | 27 | 6.2 |
| 1997 | 18 | 4th lowest of 12 · 14% of median | — | 10 | 2.0 |
| 2000 | 183 | 9th lowest of 12 · 138% of median | — | 35 | 6.1 |
| 2001 | 46 | 5th lowest of 12 · 35% of median | — | 19 | 2.5 |
| 2003 | — | no recorded volume | 207 | 0 | — |
| 2004 | 361 | 10th lowest of 12 · 271% of median | — | 39 | 5.3 |
| 2005 | 553 | 11th lowest of 12 · 416% of median | — | 74 | 4.8 |
| 2006 | 610 | 12th lowest of 12 · 459% of median | — | 93 | 5.0 |
| 2007 | 170 | 8th lowest of 12 · 128% of median | — | 47 | 2.2 |
| 2008 | — | no recorded volume | 232 | 0 | — |
| 2009 | — | no recorded volume | 227 | 0 | — |
| 2013 | 9 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 7% of median | — | 93 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 155 | 7th lowest of 12 · 116% of median | — | 81 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 644 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 6% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2018 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.