Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LUCAS SEEP WASTE D 2
Structure dossier · WDID 5800752 · 1 · PHILLIPS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:48 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 1902-06-15 — 670th most senior of the 3097 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: BROADBROOKS DITCH (1901-01-05). Immediately behind: PAT LUCAS DITCH (1902-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 35320.19158 | 1902-06-15 | 1953-03-09 | 0.833 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 361A |
| 44925.4325 | 1968-05-31 | 1973-12-31 | 4.167 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0468-73, 11CW0037, CA2613.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0468-73 | 1 | 1973-12-31 | S |
11CW0037 | 1 | 1973-12-31 | S |
CA2613 | 1 | 1953-03-09 | 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 363 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 256 AF — 70% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 411 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 70 | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 417 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 71 | 3.0 |
| 1999 | 301 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 66 | 3.0 |
| 2000 | 204 | 1st lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 89 | 2.0 |
| 2001 | 228 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 76 | 2.0 |
| 2003 | 744 | 15th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | 76 | 5.0 |
| 2004 | 666 | 14th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 85 | 4.0 |
| 2005 | 373 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 69 | 3.0 |
| 2006 | 319 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 71 | 3.0 |
| 2007 | 421 | 13th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 77 | 3.0 |
| 2008 | 363 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 62 | 3.0 |
| 2009 | 393 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 67 | 3.0 |
| 2010 | 351 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 60 | 3.0 |
| 2011 | 274 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 47 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 256 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 64 | 3.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3851 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1955-2012 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.