Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BUCKEY LEHMAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900528 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 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 — 131st most senior of the 2360 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: FRANCIS EILEBRECHT EX (1888-04-30). Immediately behind: MARSHALL NO 2 DITCH (1888-05-15).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14015.0 | 1888-05-15 | 1906-09-14 | 3.125 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 67 |
| 30667.14015 | 1888-05-15 | 1941-04-29 | 9.375 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 328 |
| 52871.0 | 1994-10-03 | 1994-12-31 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFIS |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
94CW0184, 01CW0142, CA2021, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0184 | 3 | 1994-12-31 | O, S |
01CW0142 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA2021 | 1 | 1941-04-29 | S |
CA1325 | 1 | 1906-09-14 | 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 315 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 549 AF — 174% of that, and 12th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 213 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | — | 179 | 2.1 |
| 2012 | 379 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | — | 148 | 4.2 |
| 2013 | 282 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 188 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 683 | 15th lowest of 15 · 217% of median | — | 166 | 4.1 |
| 2015 | 456 | 11th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | — | 104 | 3.6 |
| 2016 | 239 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | — | 116 | 2.7 |
| 2017 | 125 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 0 | 174 | 0.7 |
| 2018 | 259 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 198 | 3.3 |
| 2019 | 262 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | — | 168 | 1.4 |
| 2020 | 315 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 0 | 195 | 1.4 |
| 2021 | 584 | 13th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 0 | 178 | 2.6 |
| 2022 | 194 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 0 | 175 | 1.5 |
| 2023 | 622 | 14th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 0 | 177 | 2.1 |
| 2024 | 351 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | — | 169 | 1.9 |
| 2025 | 549 | 12th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | — | 178 | 3.3 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5381 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 50% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.