Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HENSIE DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1100609 · 1 · PASS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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 1871-11-30 — 72nd 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: GREEN GULCH DITCH (1871-11-30). Immediately behind: VELOTTA DITCH NO 1 (1871-11-30).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8004.0 | 1871-11-30 | 1890-06-19 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 33 |
| 8766.0 | 1873-12-31 | 1890-06-19 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 50 |
| 22834.22471 | 1911-07-11 | 1912-08-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W0294, CA1127, 17CW3037, 07CW0111.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0294 | 3 | 1912-08-31 | O, S |
CA1127 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
17CW3037 | 4 | 1890-06-19 | O |
07CW0111 | 4 | 1890-06-19 | 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 154 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2014, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 14 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 148 | 7th lowest of 14 · 96% of median | — | 70 | 1.6 |
| 1999 | — | no recorded volume | 413 | 0 | — |
| 2000 | 610 | 14th lowest of 14 · 397% of median | — | 188 | 2.6 |
| 2001 | 94 | 6th lowest of 14 · 61% of median | — | 69 | 1.8 |
| 2002 | 69 | 4th lowest of 14 · 45% of median | — | 76 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 176 | 9th lowest of 14 · 115% of median | — | 114 | 1.4 |
| 2004 | 40 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 26% of median | — | 103 | 0.2 |
| 2005 | 540 | 13th lowest of 14 · 352% of median | — | 135 | 2.8 |
| 2006 | 159 | 8th lowest of 14 · 104% of median | — | 136 | 0.8 |
| 2007 | 265 | 11th lowest of 14 · 173% of median | — | 125 | 1.2 |
| 2008 | 261 | 10th lowest of 14 · 170% of median | — | 140 | 1.6 |
| 2010 | 90 | 5th lowest of 14 · 59% of median | — | 61 | 0.7 |
| 2011 | 365 | 12th lowest of 14 · 238% of median | — | 304 | 1.4 |
| 2013 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4037 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1947-2014 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.