Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
A J LAMB DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1500567 · 1 · GREENHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:46 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 1869-12-31 — 57th most senior of the 704 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: BRUNER DITCH (1869-05-01). Immediately behind: BRYSON PUMP NO 1 (1870-01-02).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7305.0 | 1869-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 50 |
| 7365.0 | 1870-03-01 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 52, 54 |
| 8706.0 | 1873-11-01 | 1893-06-26 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 91 |
| 9040.0 | 1874-10-01 | 1893-06-26 | 2.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 96 |
| 9496.0 | 1875-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 103 |
| 10317.0 | 1878-03-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 121 |
| 15706.0 | 1892-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 199 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2756, 85CW0022, 11CW0024.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2756 | 3 | 1893-06-26 | O |
85CW0022 | 4 | 1893-06-26 | O |
11CW0024 | 1 | 1893-06-26 | 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 472 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 860 AF — 182% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 22 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 22 | 0.9 |
| 2013 | 33 | 4th lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 11 | 2.1 |
| 2014 | 399 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 83 | 6.4 |
| 2015 | 1,283 | 14th lowest of 15 · 272% of median | 144 | 10.0 |
| 2016 | 430 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 73 | 7.2 |
| 2017 | 472 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 116 | 6.1 |
| 2018 | 194 | 5th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 45 | 3.5 |
| 2019 | 485 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 66 | 6.6 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 1,318 | 15th lowest of 15 · 279% of median | 114 | 9.1 |
| 2022 | 701 | 10th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 86 | 9.5 |
| 2023 | 993 | 12th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 68 | 10.8 |
| 2024 | 1,229 | 13th lowest of 15 · 260% of median | 110 | 11.2 |
| 2025 | 860 | 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 93 | 10.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+66 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.009).
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3597 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% of the irrigation seasons in 1934-2025 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.