Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
AMENDED LAURA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6100512 · 1 · WEST PARADOX CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 04:34 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 1890-03-31 — 13th most senior of the 166 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: MARY E YOUNG NO 2 DITCH (1889-04-01). Immediately behind: MTN HILL TRO (1906-01-25).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14700.0 | 1890-03-31 | 1892-02-01 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 20 |
| 22366.21641 | 1909-04-02 | 1926-01-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 26 |
| 22366.21641 | 1909-04-02 | 1926-01-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 30 |
| 43829.38045 | 1954-03-01 | 1970-12-31 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 56247.25992 | 1921-03-01 | 2004-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
04CW0039, 82CW0352, W2182, CA3261.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
04CW0039 | 1 | 2004-12-31 | S |
82CW0352 | 2 | 1970-12-31 | O, S |
W2182 | 1 | 1926-01-19 | S |
CA3261 | 7 | 1926-01-19 | O, 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 60 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 21 AF — 35% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 483 | 13th lowest of 15 · 805% of median | 129 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 60 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 42 | 1.5 |
| 2013 | 25 | 4th lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 35 | 0.5 |
| 2014 | 138 | 10th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 63 | 3.8 |
| 2015 | 50 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 55 | 0.7 |
| 2016 | 211 | 12th lowest of 15 · 352% of median | 77 | 2.7 |
| 2017 | 510 | 14th lowest of 15 · 850% of median | 139 | 4.0 |
| 2018 | 15 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 35 | 3.4 |
| 2019 | 626 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1043% of median | 160 | 6.6 |
| 2020 | 61 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 87 | 1.5 |
| 2021 | 48 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 97 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 2 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 25 | 0.3 |
| 2023 | 207 | 11th lowest of 15 · 345% of median | 108 | 3.0 |
| 2024 | 34 | 5th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 48 | 2.1 |
| 2025 | 21 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 63 | 1.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15073 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 78% of the irrigation seasons in 1935-2025 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.