Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LANE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001009 · 1 · MINNESOTA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:00 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 1883-04-01 — 170th most senior of the 4661 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: PAONIA DITCH MINNESOTA CREEK ALTERNATE P (1883-03-02). Immediately behind: SHEPHERD & WILMOT DITCH (1884-03-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14413.12144 | 1883-04-01 | 1901-04-12 | 0.125 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 5 |
| 14413.12875 | 1885-04-01 | 1901-04-12 | 0.875 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 15 |
| 24894.19127 | 1902-05-15 | 1920-08-28 | 0.375 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | B13 |
| 29260.19127 | 1902-05-15 | 1937-05-28 | 0.625 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | H41 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2563, 86CW0038, CA1424, CA0228.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2563 | 1 | 1937-05-28 | S |
86CW0038 | 8 | 1937-05-28 | S |
CA1424 | 1 | 1920-08-28 | S |
CA0228 | 2 | 1901-04-12 | 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 130 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 49 AF — 38% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 41 | 1st lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 43 | 0.5 |
| 2011 | 52 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 57 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 94 | 6th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 92 | 0.8 |
| 2013 | 416 | 15th lowest of 15 · 320% of median | 99 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 341 | 14th lowest of 15 · 262% of median | 94 | 3.5 |
| 2015 | 273 | 11th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 126 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 157 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 86 | 2.6 |
| 2017 | 285 | 12th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 81 | 3.0 |
| 2018 | 70 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 101 | 0.6 |
| 2019 | 318 | 13th lowest of 15 · 245% of median | 109 | 1.8 |
| 2020 | 130 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 163 | 1.5 |
| 2021 | 87 | 5th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 146 | 0.5 |
| 2022 | 171 | 10th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 86 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 124 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 109 | 1.2 |
| 2024 | 49 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 100 | 0.2 |
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 | 6514 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 56% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.