Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOWER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800838 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:23 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 1882-04-15 — 31st 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: HARDWICK DITCH (1882-04-05). Immediately behind: LEWIS DITCH THOMAS CR (1882-04-25).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11793.0 | 1882-04-15 | 1889-05-11 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 23 |
| 39617.11793 | 1882-04-15 | 1971-11-05 | 11.9 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDRECFISDOMOTH | 721 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA5884, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5884 | 1 | 1971-11-05 | S |
CA0132 | 1 | 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 456 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 1,708 AF — 375% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 907 | 12th lowest of 15 · 199% of median | 133 | 5.8 |
| 2003 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2004 | 453 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 128 | 5.0 |
| 2005 | 1,797 | 15th lowest of 15 · 394% of median | 166 | 5.7 |
| 2006 | 764 | 10th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 157 | 4.5 |
| 2007 | 1,515 | 13th lowest of 15 · 332% of median | 171 | 10.0 |
| 2008 | 872 | 11th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 139 | 3.7 |
| 2009 | 723 | 9th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 118 | 3.4 |
| 2010 | 348 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 70 | 4.5 |
| 2011 | 289 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 126 | 3.4 |
| 2013 | 382 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 92 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 200 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 60 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 268 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 140 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 456 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 146 | 2.4 |
| 2021 | 1,708 | 14th lowest of 15 · 375% of median | 151 | 5.7 |
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 | 5971 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 60% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2021 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.