Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOUIS SARRASIN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800629 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:00 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 1894-05-01 — 170th 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: DOME DITCH (1894-05-01). Immediately behind: LINDSAY GUENTHER DITCH (1894-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16192.16192 | 1894-05-01 | 1904-04-29 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 113 |
| 28311.16192 | 1894-05-01 | 1943-04-19 | 2.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 265 |
| 55517.41412 | 1963-05-20 | 2002-12-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
02CW0254A, CA2079, CA1266.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02CW0254A | 5 | 2002-12-31 | S |
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1266 | 1 | 1904-04-29 | 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 523 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 439 AF — 84% of that, and 7th 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 | 370 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 99 | 3.2 |
| 2012 | 174 | 1st lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 91 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 722 | 10th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 72 | 7.1 |
| 2014 | 1,644 | 13th lowest of 15 · 314% of median | 159 | 9.1 |
| 2015 | 2,909 | 15th lowest of 15 · 556% of median | 195 | 12.5 |
| 2016 | 652 | 9th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 89 | 12.9 |
| 2017 | 1,410 | 12th lowest of 15 · 270% of median | 139 | 8.0 |
| 2018 | 264 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 51 | 7.1 |
| 2019 | 409 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 83 | 4.7 |
| 2020 | 523 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 62 | 11.6 |
| 2021 | 743 | 11th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 53 | 7.3 |
| 2022 | 2,452 | 14th lowest of 15 · 469% of median | 87 | 16.2 |
| 2023 | 249 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 49 | 5.1 |
| 2024 | 428 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 76 | 5.0 |
| 2025 | 439 | 7th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 136 | 2.6 |
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 (8/10 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 | 5127 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% 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.