Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STEWARD NO 3
Structure dossier · WDID 3001228 · 1 · LIGHTNER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:56 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 1884-03-15 — 319th 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: FLORIDA FARMERS DITCH (1883-12-05). Immediately behind: LIGHTNER CK DIVERSION #1 (1884-03-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12493.0 | 1884-03-15 | 1923-11-08 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | L-6 |
| 38929.0 | 1956-08-01 | 1966-03-21 | 6.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 65-72 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1751-B, 03CW0101, 84CW0046.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1751-B | 1 | 1966-03-21 | S |
03CW0101 | 1 | 1966-03-21 | S |
84CW0046 | 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 168 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 405 AF — 241% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 189 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 153 | 1.0 |
| 1996 | 188 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 154 | 1.2 |
| 1997 | 168 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 123 | 1.3 |
| 1998 | 134 | 7th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 157 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 215 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 140 | 1.6 |
| 2000 | 66 | 5th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 60 | 1.5 |
| 2001 | 63 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 105 | 0.6 |
| 2002 | 53 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 75 | 0.7 |
| 2003 | 25 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 49 | 0.7 |
| 2004 | 10 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 57 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 174 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 116 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 129 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 139 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 209 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 164 | 0.8 |
| 2008 | 227 | 14th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 85 | 2.0 |
| 2009 | 405 | 15th lowest of 15 · 241% of median | 139 | 1.5 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3753 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% of the irrigation seasons in 1968-2009 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.