Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RED LION SUPPLY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6400506 · 1 · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:41 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 1895-10-31 — 125th most senior of the 2052 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: JULESBURG WELL 2 (1895-03-01). Immediately behind: SETTLERS DITCH (1897-12-13).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17846.1674 | 1895-10-31 | 1907-10-26 | 52.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA0944.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0944 | 1 | 1907-10-26 | 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 783 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1985, came in at 783 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1967 | 1,131 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 42 | 20.0 |
| 1968 | 317 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 10 | 20.0 |
| 1969 | 952 | 9th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 20 | 40.0 |
| 1970 | 754 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 14 | 40.0 |
| 1972 | 674 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 49 | 40.0 |
| 1973 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 11 | 2.0 |
| 1974 | 714 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 25 | 25.0 |
| 1975 | 1,150 | 12th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 28 | 30.0 |
| 1976 | 1,031 | 10th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 27 | 30.0 |
| 1977 | 357 | 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 25 | 30.0 |
| 1978 | 1,265 | 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 28 | 25.0 |
| 1979 | 1,170 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 26 | 30.0 |
| 1980 | 1,845 | 15th lowest of 15 · 236% of median | 32 | 30.0 |
| 1984 | 83 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 7 | 8.0 |
| 1985 | 783 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 15 | 30.0 |
Call-derived yield: senior right divertible 17.8% of a median season / 0.0% dry-year.
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1047 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 14% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-1985 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.