Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LITTLE BLANCO HIGHLINE EXTENSION DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900652 · 1 · RIO BLANCO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1887-04-15 — 87th most senior of the 853 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: BROWN DITCH (1887-04-15). Immediately behind: M O BROWN DITCH (1887-04-15).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13619.0 | 1887-04-15 | 1902-01-20 | 0.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #27 |
| 35568.0 | 1947-05-20 | 1962-04-19 | 3.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | #334 |
| 41016.36676 | 1950-06-01 | 1968-12-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 68-114 |
| 46751.42519 | 1966-05-31 | 1978-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFIR | |
| 54056.54047 | 1997-12-22 | 1998-12-31 | 0.0 | 3.5 | C | IRRFIRSTKOTH |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
9 court cases:
98CW0076, W1833, CA0308-D, 91CW0065, W1880, CA0308, 03CW0047, 02CW0056, 80CW0142.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0076 | 2 | 1998-12-31 | S |
W1833 | 1 | 1978-12-31 | S |
CA0308-D | 2 | 1968-12-19 | S |
91CW0065 | 2 | 1968-12-19 | S |
W1880 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | S |
03CW0047 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | S |
02CW0056 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | S |
80CW0142 | 1 | 1902-01-20 | 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 0 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 0 AF — —% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 20 | 0.0 |
| 1997 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 15 | 0.0 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 16 | 0.0 |
| 1999 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 17 | 0.0 |
| 2000 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 21 | 0.0 |
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 20 | 0.0 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 20 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 16 | 0.0 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 22 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 14 | 14th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 36 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 1 | 13th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 18 | 0.7 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 15 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 56 | 15th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 25 | 2.0 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 12 | 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2758 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2010 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.