Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LAWSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6000668 · 1 · SAN MIGUEL RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 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 1891-06-22 — 103rd most senior of the 2893 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: HECTOR DITCH & WATER RT (1891-05-28). Immediately behind: BEAVER MESA DITCH (1891-08-17).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15148.0 | 1891-06-22 | 1911-06-03 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMDOMAUG | 47 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W1561, CA1627, 80CW0405.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1561 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | O |
CA1627 | 1 | 1911-06-03 | O |
80CW0405 | 2 | 1911-06-03 | 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 21 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1999, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1985 | 23 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 26 | 0.5 |
| 1986 | 35 | 12th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 71 | 0.2 |
| 1987 | 21 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 46 | 0.2 |
| 1988 | 50 | 14th lowest of 15 · 238% of median | 103 | 0.2 |
| 1989 | 18 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 37 | 0.2 |
| 1990 | 34 | 11th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 88 | 0.2 |
| 1991 | 36 | 13th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 76 | 0.3 |
| 1992 | 25 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 87 | 0.2 |
| 1993 | 14 | 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 75 | 0.1 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 1995 | 4 | 4th lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 23 | 0.1 |
| 1996 | 9 | 5th lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 44 | 0.1 |
| 1997 | 59 | 15th lowest of 15 · 281% of median | 177 | 0.2 |
| 1998 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 1999 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-2 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.042).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1277 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-1999 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.