Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OVERFLOW & LAUGHRAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801498 · 1 · HUNTER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:49 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 1882-05-15 — 700th 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: BRADSHAW NO 2 DITCH (1881-05-25). Immediately behind: WILLOW CREEK DITCH NO 2 (1882-08-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36396.11823 | 1882-05-15 | 1952-10-24 | 1.76 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 488 |
| 36396.1331 | 1886-06-10 | 1952-10-24 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 491 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
W3267.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3267 | 2 | 1952-10-24 | S |
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 311 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 480 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 184 | 2.2 |
| 1992 | 955 | 15th lowest of 15 · 307% of median | 366 | 2.7 |
| 1993 | 817 | 14th lowest of 15 · 263% of median | 365 | 2.5 |
| 1994 | 569 | 13th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 304 | 3.7 |
| 1995 | 385 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 68 | 2.9 |
| 1996 | 347 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 71 | 2.5 |
| 1997 | 311 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 2.3 |
| 1998 | 381 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 80 | 2.5 |
| 1999 | 168 | 7th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 67 | 1.3 |
| 2005 | 122 | 6th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 88 | 0.7 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 117 | 5th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 84 | 0.7 |
| 2010 | 2 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 16 | 0.1 |
| 2019 | 20 | 4th lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 29 | 0.4 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-27 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 2151 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1988-2020 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.