Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HIRDMAN DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 2801272 · 1 · RAZOR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 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 1879-05-31 — 10th 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: MONSON & MCCONNELL D (1879-05-31). Immediately behind: OWEN REDDEN DITCH (1879-11-30).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10743.0 | 1879-05-31 | 1894-05-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 8 |
| 28311.10743 | 1879-05-31 | 1943-04-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 209 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2079, 95CW0024, CA0946.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
95CW0024 | 4 | 1943-04-19 | O, S |
CA0946 | 1 | 1894-05-01 | 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 320 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 95 AF — 30% of that, and 3rd 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 | 537 | 12th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 194 | 2.8 |
| 2012 | 10 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 43 | 0.1 |
| 2013 | 669 | 13th lowest of 15 · 209% of median | 186 | 3.9 |
| 2014 | 503 | 10th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 61 | 5.3 |
| 2015 | 505 | 11th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 46 | 6.1 |
| 2016 | 1,131 | 15th lowest of 15 · 353% of median | 212 | 5.2 |
| 2017 | 320 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 89 | 4.0 |
| 2018 | 204 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 88 | 1.8 |
| 2019 | 1,127 | 14th lowest of 15 · 352% of median | 148 | 5.6 |
| 2020 | 274 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 82 | 3.4 |
| 2021 | 280 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 139 | 3.4 |
| 2022 | 500 | 9th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 104 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 32 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 41 | 0.7 |
| 2024 | 174 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 146 | 1.9 |
| 2025 | 95 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 82 | 0.6 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3645 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 61% of the irrigation seasons in 1997-2025 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.