Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LIGHT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800819 · 1 · EAST SOPRIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:11 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 1881-05-15 — 11th 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: FISH PD D & SP 1-4 HGT 3 (1881-05-05). Immediately behind: LIGHT AND LIGHT DITCH (1881-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11458.0 | 1881-05-15 | 1890-05-24 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 10A |
| 30941.26418 | 1922-05-01 | 1936-08-25 | 9.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 414O |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3082, CA0354.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA0354 | 1 | 1890-05-24 | 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 513 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1999, came in at 371 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1985 | 577 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 98 | 3.0 |
| 1986 | 605 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 91 | 3.4 |
| 1987 | 585 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 124 | 3.3 |
| 1988 | 513 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 121 | 2.7 |
| 1989 | 492 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 94 | 2.7 |
| 1990 | 548 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 133 | 2.4 |
| 1991 | 1,673 | 15th lowest of 15 · 326% of median | 150 | 5.7 |
| 1992 | 480 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 153 | 3.0 |
| 1993 | 684 | 14th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 145 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 609 | 13th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 116 | 5.0 |
| 1995 | 179 | 1st lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 31 | 3.0 |
| 1996 | 368 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 107 | 1.8 |
| 1997 | 427 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 124 | 1.8 |
| 1998 | 410 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 119 | 1.8 |
| 1999 | 371 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 108 | 1.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-16 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 3372 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-1999 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.