LUPTON BOTTOM DITCH ☆ My Water

Who owns it

• The Lupton Bottom Ditch Company (nonprofit corporation) — probable match, from the Colorado Secretary of State business record ↗; verify before relying on it. A nonprofit corporation of this name, in good standing, with its principal office in Fort Lupton; matched on the name and the location, not confirmed by the company.

DWR’s own records name no owner for a ditch, reservoir or well, so this comes from the source shown and can be out of date. Organisations only: a private landowner’s name is never listed.

The record and the river

Where this structure is measured

A green link is DWR's own: either its telemetry inventory maps this WDID to that station, or the station is named for this WDID (0700553 → 0700553A). An amber one is ours — the station sits within 250 m and shares a distinctive word with this structure's name, which is a strong hint rather than a DWR statement that this gage meters this structure. Wrong? Tell us.

Flowing now

26.2 cfs as of 2026-10-16 09:00 (1.3 h ago)

Provisional 15-minute telemetry from LUPBOTCO ↗ (LUPTON BOTTOM DITCH). Raw, not the approved record — it is never merged into the diversion history below. DWR publishes the official diversion record after the water year closes and is approved, which is why that record ends months back while this reads minutes ago.

In short

LUPTON BOTTOM DITCH holds 17 decreed rights on SOUTH PLATTE RIVER. As of 2026-10-02, 14 of them are out of priority under a call at admin 21709.00000 placed by WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH. Its 3 most senior rights, back to 1863-05-15, keep diverting. 2 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way. In a median year over its last 15 recorded years it diverts 18,231 acre-feet. It was a party to 18 court cases that also touched 52 other structures.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (11 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Current administration

● Junior rights called out — call at PREWITT INLET CANAL (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1936-01-13).

● Junior rights called out — call at WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1909-06-08).

Which of its rights are out of priority?

Under today's controlling call (WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH, priority 1909-06-08): 14 of this structure's 17 rights are out of priority now. (2 call(s) state no district and sit outside this one — not judged, not assumed.) In the 5 past years most like this one (2019, 2023, 2020, 2025, 2021), 5 of the rights shown below were out at least one week in at least one analog year.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1863-05-15 — 124th most senior of the 21886 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: BAILEY WATER DIST WELL 3585-F (1863-05-01)☆. Immediately behind: 0203359 (1863-05-15)☆.

On MAINSTEM at river mile 133.8, it is 820th of 890 down the reach. Immediately upstream: BRANTNER D NORTHGLENN AUG RT☆. Immediately downstream: AURORA AQUIFER RECHARGE & RECOVERY FACILITY☆.

Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.

Decreed rights (19)

Amounts marked cfs are flow rates; AF are stored volumes (storage rights are decreed in acre-feet). An absolute amount of 0.0 beside an alt-point amount is not a dead right: the water is decreed at another structure, and that row records permission to divert it here instead (an alternate point or exchange). A case listing several numbers reflects the original decree plus later change cases.

How much of this decree was in priority, by day

A right is in priority on a day when it is senior to every call administering this structure. Of its 206.74 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 6 year(s) had 151.904 cfs in priority (73% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 14.1% of days.

On 1440 days some rights were in priority and others were not — seniority splits a decree rather than switching it off. Calls are set and released at a time of day, not at midnight, so a day is counted by the hour: a call setting at 4pm costs that day a third of its rate, not all of it. A call began or ended mid-day on 40 of these days.

This is paper water. It is the decreed rate that was in priority — not water that was physically in the stream, and not water this structure diverted. A ditch can be in priority for 50 cfs on a day the creek carries five. What that distinction means →

Legal record & documents

143 decreed actions on record across 32 court cases: 14CW3123, 13CW3080, 11CW0296, 09CW0279, 15CW3165, 06CW0288, 06CW0104, 05CW0040, 05CW0331, 04CW0310 and 22 more below.

2368 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 2349 water-court documents across 52 cases, including 53 decrees. Every row opens the scanned PDF at DWR. Listing as of 2026-08-31.

Imaged documents at DWR. DWR keeps the scanned documents for this structure — decrees, rulings, plats, correspondence — in its Laserfiche archive. Open the list directly: imaged documents for 0200812 ↗ (indexed by structure, not by case — the cases listed above appear within the list).

Other DWR records for this structure: DWR’s page for this structure ↗ — net amounts, water rights, transactions & adjudication history, and diversion records, all on that one page. On this site: the district’s full legal picture →

Water-court filings naming this structure

1 application in the monthly water-court resumes explicitly reference this WDID. The resume is the earliest public notice of a new claim (C.R.S. 37-92-302) — years before anything reaches the decree record below. Most applications name structures by name rather than WDID, so absence here is weak evidence of absence.

Source: Judicial Branch combined monthly resumes (archive), indexed nightly; WDIDs attached only when a 7-digit token in the filing matches DWR’s structure inventory.

How often is it out of priority?

Across the 11 seasons whose call record is complete enough to judge this structure (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026), week by week from April.

Structures it shares court cases with

This structure was a party to 18 court cases that also touched 52 other structures — changes of water right, augmentation plans, exchanges. Being parties to the same case does not by itself mean water moved between them; which way it ran, and how much, is in the decree.

6 further shared cases not shown — the most specific are listed first, since a case binding two structures says more than one binding a dozen.

Also a party to 6 omnibus adjudications (01CW0258, 59 structures; 06CW0104, 57 structures; 91CW0126, 32 structures). Those settled many rights at once and are listed separately: they say these structures were adjudicated together, not that they deal with each other.

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

Years far under the decreed amount? That gap has a name — paper water vs. wet water, explained on this structure.

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 18,231 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 18,532 AF — 102% of that, and 10th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.

Call-derived yield: senior right divertible 58.7% of a median season / 35.5% dry-year.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.

Its reference gage, Yoxall Ditch: no clear flow trend.

Every gage and reach in this district →

How good is our record of it?

Grade A (10/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.

Recent watch events

• 2026-10-03 — legal document update (case 20CW3125)