Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHARLES W HACK NO 1 D
Structure dossier · WDID 2800523 · 1 · WEST PASS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 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 1909-08-01 — 476th most senior of the 1505 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: FUNK FLOODWATER DITCH (1908-05-01). Immediately behind: CHARLES W HACK NO 2 D (1910-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24074.21762 | 1909-08-01 | 1918-09-03 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 166 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1602, 13CW0095.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1602 | 1 | 1918-09-03 | S |
13CW0095 | 2 | 1918-09-03 | 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 190 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 30 AF — 16% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1974 | 89 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 74 | 1.3 |
| 1975 | 527 | 14th lowest of 15 · 277% of median | 61 | 4.5 |
| 1976 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 16 | 1.0 |
| 1989 | 405 | 13th lowest of 15 · 213% of median | 170 | 1.5 |
| 1990 | 377 | 12th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 191 | 1.0 |
| 1991 | 259 | 10th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 128 | 1.2 |
| 1992 | 190 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 54 | 2.0 |
| 1993 | 220 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 109 | 2.0 |
| 1994 | 170 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 80 | 1.3 |
| 1995 | 722 | 15th lowest of 15 · 380% of median | 67 | 6.0 |
| 1996 | 103 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 53 | 1.0 |
| 2014 | 343 | 11th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 160 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 94 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 177 | 0.9 |
| 2016 | 117 | 6th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 84 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 37 | 0.5 |
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 | 1869 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2017 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.