Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOUIS REYNOLDS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500675 · 1 · DIVIDE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:50 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 1886-03-26 — 47th most senior of the 1378 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: OBRIEN FEEDER DITCH (1886-03-15). Immediately behind: CANARY BIRD DITCH (1886-04-01).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13234.0 | 1886-03-26 | 1888-05-05 | 0.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 47 |
| 13623.0 | 1887-04-19 | 1888-05-05 | 0.83 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 77 |
| 19807.17105 | 1896-10-30 | 1904-03-26 | 2.28 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 118B |
| 19833.17105 | 1896-10-30 | 1904-05-07 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 118C |
| 30170.13234 | 1886-03-26 | 1939-06-22 | 0.83 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | |
| 30170.22738 | 1912-04-03 | 1939-06-22 | 3.78 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 44329.0 | 1971-05-15 | 1971-12-31 | 0.0 | 2.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W0386, CA3253, CA1074, CA0089.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0386 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | S |
CA3253 | 5 | 1939-06-22 | O, S |
CA1074 | 3 | 1904-05-07 | S |
CA0089 | 3 | 1888-05-05 | 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 195 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 350 AF — 180% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 129 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 38 | 4.5 |
| 2011 | 300 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 165 | 2.5 |
| 2012 | 90 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 72 | 0.9 |
| 2013 | 141 | 6th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 115 | 2.5 |
| 2014 | 86 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 25 | 3.8 |
| 2015 | 266 | 12th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 107 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 195 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 99 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | 235 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 160 | 1.4 |
| 2018 | 9 | 1st lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 10 | 0.7 |
| 2019 | 223 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 106 | 3.6 |
| 2020 | 145 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 67 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 115 | 4th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 83 | 2.2 |
| 2022 | 324 | 14th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 100 | 4.6 |
| 2023 | 247 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 81 | 2.5 |
| 2024 | 350 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 140 | 6.8 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5331 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 50% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.