Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LUCKSINGER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800842 · 1 · LUCHSINGER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:37 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 1881-08-15 — 27th 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: BIVERT DITCH (1881-07-16). Immediately behind: FOUR MILE DITCH (1881-11-06).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11550.0 | 1881-08-15 | 1889-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18 |
| 11772.0 | 1882-03-25 | 1889-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 21 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
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 332 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 397 AF — 120% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1983 | 141 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 72 | 1.0 |
| 1984 | 347 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 175 | 1.0 |
| 1985 | 276 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 140 | 1.0 |
| 1986 | 363 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 184 | 1.0 |
| 1990 | 168 | 4th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 170 | 0.5 |
| 1996 | 46 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 61 | 0.4 |
| 1997 | 121 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 153 | 0.5 |
| 1998 | 254 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 153 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 298 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 184 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 603 | 14th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 214 | 1.6 |
| 2003 | 405 | 13th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 193 | 1.1 |
| 2006 | 348 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 172 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 641 | 15th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 244 | 2.3 |
| 2008 | 332 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 272 | 0.8 |
| 2009 | 397 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 304 | 0.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+10 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 4153 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2009 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.