Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOUIS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800628 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:33 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 1916-05-01 — 490th most senior of the 1505 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: COLE RESERVOIR (1915-05-02). Immediately behind: WATSON WELL NO 4 (1916-12-08).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24227.0 | 1916-05-01 | 1918-09-03 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 185 |
| 28311.24025 | 1915-10-12 | 1943-04-19 | 7.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 307 |
| 55517.41412 | 1963-05-20 | 2002-12-31 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
02CW0254A, CA2079, CA1602.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02CW0254A | 5 | 2002-12-31 | S |
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1602 | 1 | 1918-09-03 | S |
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 816 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,609 AF — 197% of that, and 13th 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 | 703 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 99 | 6.1 |
| 2012 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 11 | 0.3 |
| 2013 | 432 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 46 | 6.9 |
| 2014 | 3,859 | 15th lowest of 15 · 473% of median | 122 | 19.6 |
| 2015 | 1,539 | 12th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 79 | 17.3 |
| 2016 | 426 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 50 | 6.8 |
| 2017 | 1,130 | 9th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 33 | 23.8 |
| 2018 | 788 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 65 | 10.6 |
| 2019 | 1,358 | 11th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 33 | 25.1 |
| 2020 | 604 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 55 | 7.0 |
| 2021 | 816 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 94 | 10.6 |
| 2022 | 2,660 | 14th lowest of 15 · 326% of median | 107 | 17.0 |
| 2023 | 1,226 | 10th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 77 | 11.6 |
| 2024 | 468 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 61 | 4.0 |
| 2025 | 1,609 | 13th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 102 | 9.2 |
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 | 4486 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 38% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.