Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LA KAMP DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300752 · 1 · WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:50 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1884-04-30 — 13th most senior of the 3293 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: OLD AGENCY DITCH (1884-04-20). Immediately behind: HOME DITCH (1884-05-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12539.0 | 1884-04-30 | 1889-05-10 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 10 |
| 32172.14731 | 1890-05-01 | 1942-05-26 | 1.84 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 346 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0624, CA0133.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
CA0133 | 1 | 1889-05-10 | 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 885 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,543 AF — 174% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 620 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 146 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 601 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 154 | 3.5 |
| 2013 | 662 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 143 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 559 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 140 | 2.8 |
| 2015 | 334 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 151 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 823 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 157 | 7.6 |
| 2017 | 885 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 132 | 4.5 |
| 2018 | 1,457 | 14th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 136 | 6.6 |
| 2019 | 744 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 115 | 6.6 |
| 2020 | 1,077 | 9th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 169 | 5.6 |
| 2021 | 1,080 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 164 | 5.6 |
| 2022 | 1,208 | 11th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 149 | 7.6 |
| 2023 | 1,254 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 165 | 5.6 |
| 2024 | 1,340 | 13th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 164 | 6.4 |
| 2025 | 1,543 | 15th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 160 | 7.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+64 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 7257 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.