Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
0208828
Structure dossier · WDID 0208828 · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:22 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.
Current administration
● Junior rights called out — call at LOWER LATHAM DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1877-11-14).
● Junior rights called out — call at WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1871-08-09).
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 1861-06-29 — 37th 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: BURLINGTON D RIVER HEADGATE (1861-06-29). Immediately behind: 0801250 (1861-06-30).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4198.0 | 1861-06-29 | 1884-10-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGPWR | |
| 4323.0 | 1861-11-01 | 1884-10-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGPWR | |
| 5057.0 | 1863-11-05 | 1884-10-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGPWR | |
| 5205.0 | 1864-04-01 | 1883-04-28 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISDOMAUGWLD | |
| 6273.0 | 1867-03-05 | 1884-10-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGPWR | |
| 8861.0 | 1874-04-05 | 1884-10-04 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGPWR | |
| 13108.0 | 1885-11-20 | 1893-07-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMAUGWLD | |
| 13468.0 | 1886-11-15 | 1893-07-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISDOMWLD | |
| 13772.0 | 1887-09-15 | 1893-07-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISDOMWLD |
Legal record & documents
60 decreed actions on record across
10 court cases:
87CW0107, 84CW0056, 88CW0263, 88CW0262, 86CW0223, 86CW0222, 84CW0065, 84CW0057, 84CW0055, 89CW0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
87CW0107 | 11 | 1922-06-21 | O, S |
84CW0056 | 3 | 1918-05-18 | O, S |
88CW0263 | 4 | 1913-05-22 | O, S |
88CW0262 | 3 | 1913-05-22 | O, S |
86CW0223 | 4 | 1889-10-18 | O |
86CW0222 | 2 | 1889-10-18 | O |
84CW0065 | 2 | 1889-10-18 | O |
84CW0057 | 22 | 1889-10-18 | O |
84CW0055 | 4 | 1889-10-18 | O |
89CW0132 | 5 | 1884-10-04 | O |
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 6 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 228 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 31 AF — 14% of that, and 1st lowest of the 6 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 312 | 4th lowest of 6 · 137% of median | 45 | 4.8 |
| 2004 | 441 | 5th lowest of 6 · 194% of median | 163 | 3.9 |
| 2006 | 1,195 | 6th lowest of 6 · 525% of median | 229 | 6.5 |
| 2007 | 64 | 2nd lowest of 6 · 28% of median | 20 | 2.1 |
| 2009 | 143 | 3rd lowest of 6 · 63% of median | 44 | 4.0 |
| 2010 | 31 | 1st lowest of 6 · 14% of median | 16 | 2.2 |
How good is our record of it?
Grade C (6/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | partial | missing name, structure type, water source |
| decreed rights | on file | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 517 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 2003-2010 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.