Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LANE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1300688 · 1 · MACEY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:24 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 1872-05-15 — 69th most senior of the 1017 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: ALBERT DITCH (1872-05-15). Immediately behind: VANNIER DITCH (1872-05-15).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8171.0 | 1872-05-15 | 1896-03-12 | 1.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNAUG | 41 |
| 10383.0 | 1878-06-05 | 1896-03-12 | 0.86 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNAUG | 194 |
| 14041.0 | 1888-06-10 | 1896-03-12 | 0.64 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNAUG | 456 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
03/12/1896, 02CW0186.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/12/1896 | 3 | 1896-03-12 | O |
02CW0186 | 6 | 1896-03-12 | 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 242 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2015, came in at 276 AF — 114% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 384 | 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 90 | 3.2 |
| 1999 | 131 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 51 | 1.8 |
| 2000 | 110 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 37 | 1.8 |
| 2001 | 326 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 86 | 3.2 |
| 2003 | 233 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 64 | 2.6 |
| 2004 | 293 | 12th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 83 | 2.0 |
| 2005 | 375 | 14th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 84 | 3.1 |
| 2006 | 260 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 83 | 2.2 |
| 2007 | 242 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 51 | 3.2 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 153 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 275 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 184 | 3.2 |
| 2010 | 184 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 64 | 3.2 |
| 2011 | 119 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 51 | 1.8 |
| 2012 | 163 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 69 | 1.8 |
| 2015 | 276 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 63 | 3.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5092 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1916-2015 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.