Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SELAK LARRABEE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100880 · 1 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 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 1888-05-15 — 186th most senior of the 2208 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: GLENN SHERIFF DITCH (1888-05-10). Immediately behind: WILLIAMS DITCH (SKYLARK CREEK) (1888-05-20).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20676.14015 | 1888-05-15 | 1911-08-03 | 7.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECFISDOMWLD | 174 |
| 33663.14015 | 1888-05-15 | 1943-10-01 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECFISDOMWLD | 439 |
| 56246.0 | 2003-12-30 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | OTH | |
| 56246.0 | 2003-12-30 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | OTH | |
| 56247.0 | 2003-12-31 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | MUNCOMRECFISDOMOTHWLD | |
| 56247.0 | 2003-12-31 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 5.0 | C | MUNCOMRECFISDOMOTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
03CW0336, 03CW0333, CA0795, CA0183.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0336 | 7 | 2003-12-31 | O, S |
03CW0333 | 1 | 2003-12-31 | S |
CA0795 | 1 | 1943-10-01 | S |
CA0183 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | 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 1,509 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,386 AF — 92% of that, and 6th 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 | 1,509 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 54 | 15.0 |
| 2011 | 2,955 | 15th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 72 | 30.0 |
| 2012 | 1,519 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 72 | 14.0 |
| 2013 | 1,942 | 14th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 69 | 20.0 |
| 2014 | 1,388 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 56 | 14.0 |
| 2015 | 835 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 47 | 14.0 |
| 2016 | 1,014 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 43 | 16.0 |
| 2017 | 1,652 | 12th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 70 | 19.2 |
| 2018 | 1,527 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 78 | 15.9 |
| 2019 | 1,138 | 4th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 51 | 15.5 |
| 2020 | 1,926 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 82 | 17.9 |
| 2021 | 1,553 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 146 | 17.1 |
| 2022 | 1,379 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 132 | 14.0 |
| 2023 | 621 | 1st lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 129 | 8.6 |
| 2024 | 1,386 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 72 | 20.4 |
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 (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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3317 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% 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.