Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HAZARD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800581 · 1 · COCHETOPA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:10 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 1885-05-31 — 106th 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: WOOD AND GEE DITCH (1884-06-01). Immediately behind: MEANS BROS. NO. 8 DITCH (1885-05-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16192.12935 | 1885-05-31 | 1904-04-29 | 3.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 80 |
| 16192.15462 | 1892-05-01 | 1904-04-29 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 111 |
| 38822.31916 | 1937-05-20 | 1961-12-15 | 18.85 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 389 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA5591, CA3039.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5591 | 2 | 1961-12-15 | S |
CA3039 | 2 | 1904-04-29 | 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 935 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,333 AF — 143% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 455 | 5th lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 51 | 7.3 |
| 2011 | 358 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 61 | 5.8 |
| 2012 | 380 | 4th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 80 | 3.7 |
| 2013 | 478 | 6th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 61 | 5.5 |
| 2015 | 1,660 | 11th lowest of 15 · 178% of median | 58 | 18.1 |
| 2016 | 2,017 | 13th lowest of 15 · 216% of median | 91 | 16.0 |
| 2017 | 2,334 | 14th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 69 | 18.1 |
| 2018 | 345 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 61 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 1,778 | 12th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 82 | 12.0 |
| 2020 | 935 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 79 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 95 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 17 | 4.0 |
| 2022 | 659 | 7th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 73 | 5.0 |
| 2023 | 1,153 | 9th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 86 | 8.8 |
| 2024 | 2,537 | 15th lowest of 15 · 271% of median | 87 | 20.3 |
| 2025 | 1,333 | 10th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 60 | 12.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3598 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 30% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.