Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LONG MEADOW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900654 · 1 · MILL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:23 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 1893-05-24 — 103rd 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: SHEEP CABIN DITCH (1892-05-01). Immediately behind: W J HARRIS DITCH (1893-06-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15850.0 | 1893-05-24 | 1902-01-20 | 0.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #72 |
| 16801.0 | 1895-12-31 | 1902-01-20 | 0.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #90 |
| 41016.32142 | 1938-01-01 | 1968-12-19 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 68-61 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0308-D, CA0073.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0073 | 2 | 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 275 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 29 AF — 10% of that, and 2nd 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 | 53 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 69 | 1.3 |
| 2012 | 456 | 14th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 64 | 6.5 |
| 2013 | 624 | 15th lowest of 15 · 227% of median | 107 | 4.1 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 10 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 332 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 127 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 104 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 64 | 1.2 |
| 2017 | 214 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 115 | 1.8 |
| 2018 | 382 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 180 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 433 | 13th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 128 | 4.2 |
| 2020 | 231 | 7th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 109 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 324 | 9th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 186 | 1.4 |
| 2022 | 413 | 12th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 98 | 3.1 |
| 2023 | 275 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 171 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 159 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 89 | 1.5 |
| 2025 | 29 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 56 | 0.4 |
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 | 4858 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1939-2025 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.