Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LEWIS STROUSE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0900787 · 1 · BEAR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:06 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 1863-03-01 — 61st most senior of the 2058 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: SPICKERMAN MIDDLE LEFT IN STREAM AT HEAD (1862-11-01). Immediately behind: UPPER BUCHANAN POND (1863-03-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4808.0 | 1863-03-01 | 1884-02-04 | 15.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA6832, CA51268, 81CW0283.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA6832 | 1 | 1884-02-04 | O |
CA51268 | 1 | 1884-02-04 | O |
81CW0283 | 2 | 1884-02-04 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 706 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1984, came in at 510 AF — 72% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1970 | 819 | 12th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 136 | 4.0 |
| 1971 | 1,127 | 14th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 171 | 5.0 |
| 1972 | 1,107 | 13th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 188 | 4.0 |
| 1973 | 734 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 146 | 5.0 |
| 1974 | 1,127 | 14th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 230 | 3.0 |
| 1975 | 795 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 281 | 3.0 |
| 1976 | 496 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 159 | 5.0 |
| 1977 | 359 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 105 | 4.0 |
| 1978 | 125 | 1st lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 35 | 4.0 |
| 1979 | 540 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 133 | 5.0 |
| 1980 | 540 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 117 | 5.0 |
| 1981 | 706 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 199 | 5.0 |
| 1982 | 714 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 198 | 5.0 |
| 1983 | 569 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 120 | 3.0 |
| 1984 | 510 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 127 | 4.0 |
Call-derived yield: senior right divertible 100.0% of a median season / 44.4% dry-year.
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-32 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.047).
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 | 4152 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 56% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-1984 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.