Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BEAR WALLOW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3001038 · 1 · LIGHTNER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:16 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 1893-05-05 — 345th most senior of the 2277 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: BANKS-TYNER DITCH (1893-03-08). Immediately behind: BEAR WALLOW DITCH AP (1893-05-05).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15831.0 | 1893-05-05 | 1923-11-08 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | L-12 |
| 42448.39932 | 1959-05-01 | 1968-05-03 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 68-71 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
05CW0102, CA1751-B, 84CW0047.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0102 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | S |
CA1751-B | 1 | 1968-05-03 | S |
84CW0047 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | 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 11 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 10 AF — 91% of that, and 6th 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 | 17 | 9th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 117 | 0.1 |
| 2012 | 17 | 9th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 113 | 0.1 |
| 2013 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 21 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 8 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 106 | 0.1 |
| 2015 | 45 | 14th lowest of 15 · 409% of median | 79 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 102 | 15th lowest of 15 · 927% of median | 65 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 10 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 92 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 27 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 19 | 12th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 131 | 0.2 |
| 2020 | 5 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 52 | 0.1 |
| 2021 | 5 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 78 | 0.1 |
| 2022 | 11 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 113 | 0.1 |
| 2023 | 17 | 9th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 133 | 0.1 |
| 2024 | 19 | 12th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 144 | 0.1 |
| 2025 | 10 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 143 | 0.1 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4254 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1968-2025 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.