LOWER LATHAM DITCH ☆ My Water

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

80.51 cfs as of 2026-10-14 11:00 (2.0 h ago)

Provisional 15-minute telemetry from LLADIVCO ↗ (LOWER LATHAM 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

LOWER LATHAM DITCH holds 7 decreed rights on SOUTH PLATTE RIVER. A call at SOUTH PLATTE RIVER COMPACT on SOUTH PLATTE RIVER (1897-06-13), and 1 other currently reaches it: junior rights called out. 5 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way. That is today's position; the weeks ahead cannot be projected for it: no gage record for this year at this date, so there is nothing to find analogs for. In a median year over its last 15 recorded years it diverts 49,614 acre-feet. That use is rising by about 1120.0 acre-feet a year over 15 years (p=0.002153493458012523). It was a party to 9 court cases that also touched 6 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 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER COMPACT (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1897-06-13).

● Junior rights called out — call at STERLING IRR CO DITCH 1 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1901-02-16).

Which of its rights are out of priority?

The outlook for the weeks ahead is not computable for this structure: no gage record for this year at this date, so there is nothing to find analogs for. Today’s position is a separate question, and it is answered in Current administration above — that screen reads the district’s active calls and needs no reference gage.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1869-05-12 — 279th 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: NICKERSON DITCH 1 LEFT I (1869-05-01)☆. Immediately behind: AHLMAAZ GOVE DITCH (1869-06-01)☆.

On MAINSTEM at river mile 169.6, it is 879th of 890 down the reach. Immediately upstream: SECTION NO 3 DITCH CENTRAL AUG RT☆. Immediately downstream: WESTERN TAIL RETURN☆.

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 (7)

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 329.56 cfs decreed rate, the average day over the last 6 year(s) had 315.933 cfs in priority (96% of the decree). No call in effect is a free river — that was 14.3% of days.

On 1551 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 42 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

80 decreed actions on record across 13 court cases: 18CW3194, 03CW0047, 11CW0213, 02CW0270, CA54658, 02CW0245, CA6009, 88CW0264B, 20CW3213, 19CW3084 and 3 more below.

608 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 597 water-court documents across 13 cases, including 13 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 0200834 ↗ (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 →

Filings that would move water above this headgate

2 water-court applications in the monthly resumes name a structure on SOUTH PLATTE RIVER upstream of this headgate. A new right, exchange or change of use up there changes what arrives down here — the resume is the public notice, and the opposition window is how anyone affected answers it.

Judged on this structure’s own named stream only — a filing on a tributary that joins upstream is not judged here. Filings that name structures only in prose, without a WDID, are invisible to this card. Reading aid, not legal advice; the deadline is computed from C.R.S. 37-92-302(3), and the court’s own notice controls.

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 9 court cases that also touched 6 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.

Also a party to 3 omnibus adjudications (CA54658, 104 structures; CA6009, 30 structures; 16CW3196, 26 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 49,614 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 52,349 AF — 106% of that, and 11th 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 39.0% of a median season / 21.5% dry-year.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+1120 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).

Its reference gage, Lower Latham Bypass No 2: 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

• 2026-09-11 — legal document update (case 16CW3196)