Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LAURENT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4200554 · 1 · NORTH FORK KANNAH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:03 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 1882-03-06 — 5th most senior of the 726 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: CITY DITCH (1882-03-06). Immediately behind: BALES WILLIAMS MORRISON (1884-11-01).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11753.0 | 1882-03-06 | 1888-07-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 1 |
| 12174.0 | 1883-05-01 | 1888-07-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 2 |
| 12905.0 | 1885-05-01 | 1888-07-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 3 |
| 13901.0 | 1888-01-22 | 1888-07-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 4 |
| 13903.0 | 1888-01-24 | 1888-07-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 5 |
| 30895.25291 | 1919-03-31 | 1941-07-25 | 15.32 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.26085 | 1921-06-02 | 1941-07-25 | 18.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 34419.24258 | 1916-06-01 | 1959-07-21 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA8303, CA5812, 14CW3012.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
14CW3012 | 5 | 1888-07-25 | 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 1,231 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,702 AF — 138% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,291 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 168 | 11.8 |
| 2011 | 1,683 | 13th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 214 | 13.0 |
| 2012 | 716 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 212 | 4.8 |
| 2013 | 1,064 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 214 | 8.5 |
| 2014 | 1,231 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 214 | 10.6 |
| 2015 | 1,371 | 11th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 214 | 8.1 |
| 2016 | 1,331 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 214 | 22.2 |
| 2017 | 981 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 212 | 8.2 |
| 2018 | 698 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 234 | 4.3 |
| 2019 | 1,598 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 214 | 14.7 |
| 2020 | 1,014 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 214 | 6.4 |
| 2021 | 347 | 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 215 | 1.6 |
| 2022 | 716 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 210 | 6.3 |
| 2023 | 2,074 | 15th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 273 | 46.8 |
| 2024 | 1,702 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 305 | 11.3 |
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5872 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1980-2024 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.