Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LORD RES NO 4
Structure dossier · WDID 0103902 · 3 · LOST CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:07 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 1907-04-12 — 4216th most senior of the 7705 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: MCQWD SEC 28 W 2-43077F (1993-11-05). Immediately behind: NATIONAL HOG F W 1-35063 (1989-04-26).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52595.2092 | 1907-04-12 | 1994-12-31 | 775.0 | 0.0 | A | STOIRR |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
94CW0299.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0299 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 1,073 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 273 AF — 25% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 11 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | — | no recorded volume | 1,349 | 0 | — |
| 2010 | — | no recorded volume | 850 | 0 | — |
| 2012 | 725 | 5th lowest of 11 · 68% of median | 54 | 31 | 43.9 |
| 2013 | 230 | 2nd lowest of 11 · 21% of median | — | 6 | 71.6 |
| 2014 | 1,974 | 11th lowest of 11 · 184% of median | 1,406 | 108 | 50.8 |
| 2015 | 1,941 | 10th lowest of 11 · 181% of median | 1,491 | 85 | 70.0 |
| 2016 | 1,677 | 9th lowest of 11 · 156% of median | 1,036 | 117 | 46.0 |
| 2017 | 1,547 | 8th lowest of 11 · 144% of median | 884 | 88 | 61.4 |
| 2018 | 1,073 | 6th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | — | 34 | 50.0 |
| 2019 | 1,424 | 7th lowest of 11 · 133% of median | 597 | 43 | 67.3 |
| 2020 | 437 | 4th lowest of 11 · 41% of median | 135 | 11 | 69.3 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 11 · 0% of median | 0 | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 273 | 3rd lowest of 11 · 25% of median | 273 | 305 | 21.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 11 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 889 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 2009-2024 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.