Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LONG PARK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3400544 · 1 · MIDDLE MANCOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:07 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1882-05-15 — 189th most senior of the 495 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: CARPENTER AND MITCHELL D (1882-05-15). Immediately behind: MANCOS CANYON DITCH PUMP (1882-05-15).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11823.0 | 1882-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-13 |
| 14425.0 | 1889-06-29 | 1893-04-28 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-38 |
| 14441.0 | 1889-07-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-39 |
| 14745.0 | 1890-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-41 |
| 15476.0 | 1892-05-15 | 1893-04-28 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | M-45 |
| 30667.1461 | 1889-12-31 | 1963-03-22 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-14 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0967, W1308, CA1993.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0967 | 1 | 1963-03-22 | S |
W1308 | 1 | 1893-04-28 | O |
CA1993 | 4 | 1893-04-28 | 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 437 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 314 AF — 72% of that, and 3rd 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 | 650 | 14th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 365 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 401 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 306 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 362 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 283 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 494 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 318 | 4.5 |
| 2015 | 631 | 12th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 328 | 3.8 |
| 2016 | 766 | 15th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 219 | 6.4 |
| 2017 | 644 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 190 | 8.7 |
| 2018 | 81 | 1st lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 70 | 1.4 |
| 2019 | 609 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 155 | 5.0 |
| 2020 | 353 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 138 | 4.4 |
| 2021 | 226 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 295 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 475 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 365 | 7.8 |
| 2023 | 437 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 5.5 |
| 2024 | 318 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 366 | 5.0 |
| 2025 | 314 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 304 | 5.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13118 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 81% of the irrigation seasons in 1949-2025 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.