Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HUFF AND DICE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800591 · 1 · QUARTZ CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:32 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 1882-05-01 — 458th 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: TORNAY HIGHLINE DITCH (1912-07-15). Immediately behind: SARGENTS NO 1 D (1883-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24074.11809 | 1882-05-01 | 1918-09-03 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 145 |
| 24074.15858 | 1893-06-01 | 1918-09-03 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 153 |
| 28311.11818 | 1882-05-10 | 1943-04-19 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 225+387 |
| 28311.15858 | 1893-06-01 | 1943-04-19 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 264 |
| 28311.23527 | 1914-06-01 | 1943-04-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 301 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2079, CA1602.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2079 | 3 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1602 | 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 1,105 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,021 AF — 92% of that, and 6th 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 | 1,305 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 168 | 10.5 |
| 2012 | 392 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 103 | 7.5 |
| 2013 | 436 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 159 | 9.1 |
| 2014 | 1,123 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 125 | 9.5 |
| 2015 | 1,652 | 15th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 107 | 8.5 |
| 2016 | 1,057 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 59 | 10.2 |
| 2017 | 1,466 | 14th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 156 | 10.2 |
| 2018 | 837 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 191 | 9.3 |
| 2019 | 1,150 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 63 | 10.2 |
| 2020 | 1,363 | 13th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 93 | 10.2 |
| 2021 | 1,105 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 89 | 12.0 |
| 2022 | 878 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 63 | 9.3 |
| 2023 | 974 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 77 | 8.3 |
| 2024 | 1,198 | 11th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 91 | 11.1 |
| 2025 | 1,021 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 86 | 11.1 |
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 (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 | 6863 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 58% 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.