Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
J JARVIS LUTON CR NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1300894 · 1 · LUTON CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:22 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 1870-05-01 — 11th 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: ALDRICH DITCH NO 2 (1870-04-15). Immediately behind: F L KENNICOTT SWIFT CR 1 (1870-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7426.0 | 1870-05-01 | 1896-03-12 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 7 |
| 14031.0 | 1888-05-31 | 1896-03-12 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 450 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/12/1896 | 2 | 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 174 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1992, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1916 | 353 | 11th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 179 | 1.0 |
| 1917 | 353 | 11th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 179 | 1.0 |
| 1918 | 387 | 14th lowest of 15 · 222% of median | 195 | 1.0 |
| 1919 | 127 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 65 | 1.0 |
| 1920 | 192 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 98 | 1.0 |
| 1921 | 127 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 65 | 1.0 |
| 1924 | 277 | 10th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 94 | 1.5 |
| 1925 | 50 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 26 | 1.0 |
| 1926 | 122 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 124 | 0.5 |
| 1927 | 174 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 175 | 0.5 |
| 1929 | 476 | 15th lowest of 15 · 274% of median | 121 | 2.0 |
| 1930 | 359 | 13th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 98 | 2.0 |
| 1938 | 141 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 72 | 1.0 |
| 1975 | 21 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 16 | 1.2 |
| 1992 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1508 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 9% of the irrigation seasons in 1916-1992 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.