Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HATCHERY HEADGATE NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 1102071 · 1 · CHALK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:39 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 1867-05-31 — 53rd 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: THIELE DITCH (1867-05-31). Immediately behind: NOLAND DITCH (1867-11-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6360.0 | 1867-05-31 | 1890-06-19 | 9.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFIS | 18 |
| 29063.0 | 1929-07-28 | 1932-01-18 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | FIS | NI |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4304, 12CW0003, W4800, CA4068.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4304 | 1 | 1932-01-18 | S |
12CW0003 | 1 | 1932-01-18 | S |
W4800 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
CA4068 | 1 | 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 3,636 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 2,755 AF — 76% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 3,636 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 366 | 13.3 |
| 2009 | 4,360 | 13th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | — | 335 | 13.3 |
| 2010 | 3,644 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 216 | 12.7 |
| 2011 | 4,498 | 14th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | — | 232 | 12.6 |
| 2012 | 4,734 | 15th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | — | 248 | 10.0 |
| 2013 | 4,092 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 231 | 10.0 |
| 2014 | 3,743 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 203 | 13.6 |
| 2015 | 3,299 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | — | 164 | 13.0 |
| 2016 | 3,001 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 174 | 12.4 |
| 2017 | 3,767 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 196 | 12.5 |
| 2018 | 3,130 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 226 | 10.0 |
| 2019 | 2,287 | 1st lowest of 15 · 63% of median | — | 179 | 10.0 |
| 2020 | 3,100 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | — | 177 | 10.0 |
| 2021 | 2,755 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | — | 149 | 10.6 |
| 2022 | 2,755 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | — | 149 | 10.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-124 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.005).
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 | 10182 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 70% of the irrigation seasons in 1955-2022 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.