Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HANNENKRATT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1200630 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:32 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 1863-08-31 — 29th 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: TENAZZI DITCH (1863-03-01). Immediately behind: CANON CITY WATER WORKS (1863-12-30).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4991.0 | 1863-08-31 | 1894-02-03 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 16 |
| 11353.0 | 1881-01-30 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 243 |
| 11382.0 | 1881-02-28 | 1894-02-03 | 0.56 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 244 |
| 12875.0 | 1885-04-01 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 318 |
| 13228.0 | 1886-03-20 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 334 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4584, CA4380, 05/14/1906, 02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4584 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | O |
CA4380 | 1 | 1894-02-03 | O |
05/14/1906 | 1 | 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 787 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,296 AF — 165% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 592 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 167 | 5.1 |
| 2012 | 237 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 62 | 4.4 |
| 2013 | 1,115 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 158 | 5.7 |
| 2014 | 956 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 157 | 13.2 |
| 2015 | 149 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 193 | 5.9 |
| 2016 | 525 | 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 77 | 5.6 |
| 2017 | 5 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 3 | 2.6 |
| 2018 | 749 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 131 | 6.6 |
| 2019 | 936 | 9th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 132 | 12.0 |
| 2020 | 994 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 140 | 5.4 |
| 2021 | 670 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 167 | 84.0 |
| 2022 | 1,557 | 15th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 194 | 5.2 |
| 2023 | 787 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 93 | 5.3 |
| 2024 | 1,260 | 13th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 179 | 6.0 |
| 2025 | 1,296 | 14th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 165 | 5.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+58 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 17057 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 70% of the irrigation seasons in 1911-2025 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.