← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

LUCERO DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 1800506 · 1 · APISHAPA RIVER · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:25 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 1867-03-319th most senior of the 367 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: MAURICIO CANYON WELL (1866-10-31). Immediately behind: DESIDERO LOVATO DITCH (1867-04-30).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
6299.01867-03-311891-03-14 10.80.0 CIRR EXC-2

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 525 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 525 AF — 100% of that, and 8th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2011 3 3rd lowest of 15 · 1% of median 61 0.2
2012 790 10th lowest of 15 · 150% of median 127 11.2
2013 264 5th lowest of 15 · 50% of median 59 15.0
2014 1,894 14th lowest of 15 · 361% of median 115 12.5
2015 1,060 12th lowest of 15 · 202% of median 97 10.8
2016 913 11th lowest of 15 · 174% of median 141 9.7
2017 1,614 13th lowest of 15 · 307% of median 222 10.9
2018 15 4th lowest of 15 · 3% of median 245 3.7
2019 464 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median 90 5.6
2020 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 20 0.0
2021 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 79 0.0
2022 370 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median 304 8.9
2023 2,828 15th lowest of 15 · 539% of median 179 10.6
2024 713 9th lowest of 15 · 136% of median 142 18.2
2025 525 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 213 10.8

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 8681 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1916-2025 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.