Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HULBERT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1200543 · 1 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:10 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 1871-05-02 — 105th most senior of the 1967 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: WEST PERRY DITCH (1871-05-01). Immediately behind: TREMAYNE DITCH NO 1 (1871-05-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7792.0 | 1871-05-02 | 1894-02-03 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 70 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2991, 02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2991 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | O |
02/03/1894 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | 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 135 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1989, came in at 43 AF — 32% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1916 | 190 | 12th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 97 | 1.0 |
| 1917 | 182 | 11th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 184 | 0.5 |
| 1918 | 175 | 10th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 176 | 0.5 |
| 1923 | 1 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 2 | 0.6 |
| 1939 | 135 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 74 | 1.0 |
| 1970 | 210 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 110 | 1.3 |
| 1971 | 328 | 14th lowest of 15 · 243% of median | 98 | 2.3 |
| 1972 | 63 | 4th lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 30 | 1.1 |
| 1973 | 59 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 34 | 0.9 |
| 1977 | 86 | 6th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 111 | 0.5 |
| 1979 | 135 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 54 | 1.8 |
| 1980 | 129 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 57 | 2.1 |
| 1982 | 63 | 4th lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 36 | 1.5 |
| 1983 | 355 | 15th lowest of 15 · 263% of median | 105 | 2.3 |
| 1989 | 43 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 63 | 0.4 |
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 | 1851 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 11% of the irrigation seasons in 1911-1989 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.