Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LEOPARD CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6000669 · 1 · LEOPARD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:20 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 1887-06-20 — 22nd 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: CARPENTER DITCH (1887-02-01). Immediately behind: SAN JUAN VISTA SUB WELL1 (1887-06-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13685.0 | 1887-06-20 | 1911-06-03 | 4.521 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13 |
| 50403.13685 | 1887-06-20 | 1988-12-31 | 3.63 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
88CW0130, W2225, CA1627.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0130 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
W2225 | 1 | 1911-06-03 | O |
CA1627 | 1 | 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 318 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 389 AF — 122% of that, and 10th 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 | 399 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 137 | 4.2 |
| 2011 | 422 | 12th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 124 | 3.1 |
| 2012 | 38 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 42 | 1.1 |
| 2013 | 336 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 184 | 3.8 |
| 2014 | 439 | 13th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 139 | 2.7 |
| 2015 | 197 | 6th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 130 | 1.8 |
| 2016 | 198 | 7th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 85 | 2.6 |
| 2017 | 143 | 4th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 78 | 1.9 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 13 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 181 | 5th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 47 | 3.1 |
| 2020 | 73 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 107 | 1.0 |
| 2021 | 318 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 111 | 3.8 |
| 2022 | 722 | 15th lowest of 15 · 227% of median | 169 | 4.1 |
| 2023 | 515 | 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 154 | 4.3 |
| 2024 | 389 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 159 | 2.1 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6649 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2024 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.