Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ABBOTT & LOPER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100735 · 1 · HALFMOON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:36 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 1882-04-25 — 182nd most senior of the 1489 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: SMITH UPPER POND (1882-04-01). Immediately behind: SITES DITCH NO 2 (1882-04-30).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11803.0 | 1882-04-25 | 1890-06-19 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 109 |
| 13641.0 | 1887-05-07 | 1890-06-19 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 159 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2230, 89CW0042, CA1127.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2230 | 1 | 1911-10-11 | O |
89CW0042 | 3 | 1911-10-11 | O |
CA1127 | 2 | 1890-06-19 | 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 14 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 441 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2007, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1913 | 184 | 4th lowest of 14 · 42% of median | 94 | 1.0 |
| 1948 | 976 | 11th lowest of 14 · 221% of median | 123 | 4.0 |
| 1970 | 1,172 | 13th lowest of 14 · 266% of median | 123 | 9.0 |
| 1971 | 508 | 9th lowest of 14 · 115% of median | 133 | 6.0 |
| 1972 | 1,176 | 14th lowest of 14 · 267% of median | 154 | 5.0 |
| 1973 | 904 | 10th lowest of 14 · 205% of median | 98 | 7.0 |
| 1976 | 262 | 5th lowest of 14 · 59% of median | 91 | 3.0 |
| 1977 | 179 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 41% of median | 94 | 1.0 |
| 1978 | 375 | 7th lowest of 14 · 85% of median | 135 | 1.5 |
| 1987 | 979 | 12th lowest of 14 · 222% of median | 142 | 3.5 |
| 1988 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 1989 | 507 | 8th lowest of 14 · 115% of median | 163 | 2.4 |
| 1990 | 268 | 6th lowest of 14 · 61% of median | 83 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 18 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1457 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 6% of the irrigation seasons in 1913-2023 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.