Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HERMOSA COMPANY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3000568 · 1 · HERMOSA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:12 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1875-03-01 — 104th most senior of the 2277 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: ANIMAS CONSOLIDATED D (1875-01-01). Immediately behind: WATERFALL DITCH (1875-10-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9191.0 | 1875-03-01 | 1923-11-08 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H-3 |
| 9588.0 | 1876-04-01 | 1923-11-08 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H-4 |
| 10289.0 | 1878-03-03 | 1923-11-08 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H-8 |
| 17288.0 | 1897-05-01 | 1923-11-08 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H-22 |
| 19875.0 | 1904-06-01 | 1923-11-08 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H-24 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1751, CA1658.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1751 | 6 | 1923-11-08 | O |
CA1658 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | 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 4,229 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 4,001 AF — 95% of that, and 5th 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 | 4,622 | 14th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 262 | 13.6 |
| 2012 | 4,609 | 13th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 239 | 13.6 |
| 2013 | 4,320 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 241 | 12.9 |
| 2014 | 4,687 | 15th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 219 | 15.1 |
| 2015 | 4,106 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 228 | 13.1 |
| 2016 | 4,323 | 11th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 225 | 17.2 |
| 2017 | 4,229 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 226 | 14.0 |
| 2018 | 2,670 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 141 | 15.1 |
| 2019 | 2,080 | 1st lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 178 | 12.3 |
| 2020 | 3,070 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 218 | 11.9 |
| 2021 | 4,381 | 12th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 219 | 16.9 |
| 2022 | 3,757 | 4th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 218 | 10.8 |
| 2023 | 4,041 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 211 | 17.5 |
| 2024 | 4,241 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 213 | 15.6 |
| 2025 | 4,001 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 204 | 15.8 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 19925 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 93% of the irrigation seasons in 1925-2025 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.