Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOGUE DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1100575 · 1 · SOUTH ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:49 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 1883-03-10 — 196th most senior of the 1489 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: JOHN POST SEEPAGE NO 2 (1882-12-31). Immediately behind: EUREKA DITCH (1883-03-26).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12122.0 | 1883-03-10 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 126 |
| 12724.0 | 1884-11-01 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 138 |
| 14032.0 | 1888-06-01 | 1890-06-19 | 2.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 170 |
| 19188.16907 | 1896-04-15 | 1902-07-21 | 1.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 23205.14781 | 1890-06-20 | 1913-07-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 26862.18718 | 1901-04-01 | 1924-01-22 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 26864.14782 | 1890-06-21 | 1924-01-22 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2762, CA2342, CA2540.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2762 | 2 | 1924-01-22 | S |
CA2342 | 1 | 1913-07-15 | S |
CA2540 | 4 | 1902-07-21 | 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 554 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 118 AF — 21% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 902 | 13th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 165 | 3.7 |
| 2009 | 1,168 | 15th lowest of 15 · 211% of median | 178 | 6.0 |
| 2010 | 782 | 12th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 156 | 3.9 |
| 2011 | 617 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 127 | 3.7 |
| 2012 | 5 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 26 | 0.2 |
| 2013 | 203 | 5th lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 80 | 2.5 |
| 2014 | 588 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 103 | 3.9 |
| 2015 | 554 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 105 | 3.4 |
| 2016 | 379 | 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 74 | 4.7 |
| 2017 | 1,042 | 14th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 175 | 4.5 |
| 2018 | 139 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 41 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 670 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 107 | 5.1 |
| 2020 | 185 | 4th lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 59 | 2.9 |
| 2021 | 457 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 71 | 4.6 |
| 2023 | 118 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 27 | 4.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-48 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8859 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2023 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.