Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOWER LATHAM DRAIN
Structure dossier · WDID 0200891 · DITCH · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · 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 (0576005) — 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.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at LOWER LATHAM DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1877-11-14).
● Fully called out — call at LOWER PLATTE BEAVER D (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1888-04-14).
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 1889-03-01 — 838th most senior of the 21881 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: 0203843 (1887-09-12). Immediately behind: 0203845 (1889-09-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15895.14305 | 1889-03-01 | 1918-08-02 | 35.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDFIRDOMSTKAUGCURRCH |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
CA54658, 88CW0264B, 20CW3213, 19CW3084, 13CW3057, 03CW0047, 02CW0404, 02CW0245.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA54658 | 1 | 1918-08-02 | S |
88CW0264B | 2 | 1918-08-02 | S |
20CW3213 | 2 | 1918-08-02 | S |
19CW3084 | 2 | 1918-08-02 | S |
13CW3057 | 2 | 1918-08-02 | S |
03CW0047 | 2 | 1918-08-02 | S |
02CW0404 | 2 | 1918-08-02 | S |
02CW0245 | 2 | 1918-08-02 | 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 9,523 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,033 AF — 32% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 10,816 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 365 | 24.0 |
| 2012 | 10,223 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 366 | 28.6 |
| 2013 | 15,013 | 15th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 365 | 100.0 |
| 2014 | 13,726 | 14th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 365 | 30.0 |
| 2015 | 8,234 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 308 | 20.0 |
| 2016 | 9,949 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 273 | 25.0 |
| 2017 | 9,523 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 229 | 40.0 |
| 2018 | 12,748 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 274 | 45.0 |
| 2019 | 13,280 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 304 | 45.0 |
| 2020 | 7,160 | 6th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 203 | 25.0 |
| 2021 | 4,146 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 210 | 10.0 |
| 2022 | 4,323 | 4th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 216 | 15.0 |
| 2023 | 5,244 | 5th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 267 | 17.0 |
| 2024 | 48 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 366 | 6.0 |
| 2025 | 3,033 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 304 | 9.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-697 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7612 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 64% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.