Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LEMOND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800814 · 1 · BRUSH 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 (2deb1d7) — 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 1882-06-07 — 52nd most senior of the 4788 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: SHIPPEE DITCH (1882-06-01). Immediately behind: EUREKA NO 1 DITCH (1882-06-15).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11846.0 | 1882-06-07 | 1889-05-11 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 37 |
| 13972.0 | 1888-04-02 | 1889-05-11 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 187 |
| 32907.31655 | 1936-09-01 | 1949-08-25 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 446 |
| 62374.0 | 2020-10-09 | 2020-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.65 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
20CW3188, CA3723, 09CW0189, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
20CW3188 | 1 | 2020-12-31 | S |
CA3723 | 1 | 1949-08-25 | S |
09CW0189 | 4 | 1949-08-25 | O, S |
CA0132 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | 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 396 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 583 | 11th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 148 | 2.0 |
| 2005 | 205 | 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 134 | 0.8 |
| 2006 | 30 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 17 | 1.0 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 636 | 13th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 140 | 2.9 |
| 2014 | 484 | 9th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 114 | 2.2 |
| 2015 | 540 | 10th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 139 | 2.6 |
| 2016 | 245 | 6th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 135 | 0.9 |
| 2017 | 396 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 102 | 2.2 |
| 2018 | 819 | 14th lowest of 15 · 207% of median | 155 | 3.2 |
| 2019 | 33 | 4th lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 16 | 1.1 |
| 2021 | 890 | 15th lowest of 15 · 225% of median | 156 | 3.3 |
| 2022 | 589 | 12th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 117 | 2.6 |
| 2023 | 314 | 7th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 100 | 1.8 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4454 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.