Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HAMBELTON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3200574 · 1 · MCELMO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:05 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1891-04-20 — 134th most senior of the 638 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: COTTONWOOD DITCH NO 1 (1891-01-25). Immediately behind: MURRAY-ZWICKER-TOZER D (1892-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15085.0 | 1891-04-20 | 1962-08-14 | 12.43 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 62-12 |
| 54786.54541 | 1999-04-30 | 2000-12-31 | 0.03 | 0.47 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
14CW0037, 00CW0012, W0042, CA1077.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
14CW0037 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
00CW0012 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
W0042 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
CA1077 | 3 | 1962-08-14 | 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 3,495 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,697 AF — 77% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 4,714 | 12th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 420 | 245 | 16.0 |
| 2012 | 5,269 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 542 | 241 | 15.2 |
| 2013 | 2,897 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 441 | 235 | 16.2 |
| 2014 | 3,354 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 620 | 236 | 13.5 |
| 2015 | 3,495 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 923 | 244 | 15.4 |
| 2016 | 4,462 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 1,432 | 304 | 15.4 |
| 2017 | 5,329 | 15th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 1,812 | 288 | 14.9 |
| 2018 | 2,864 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 535 | 223 | 11.9 |
| 2019 | 4,872 | 13th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 1,221 | 237 | 16.2 |
| 2020 | 3,719 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 815 | 256 | 13.0 |
| 2021 | 2,652 | 1st lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 622 | 225 | 13.3 |
| 2022 | 2,819 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 487 | 220 | 13.3 |
| 2023 | 3,752 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 625 | 188 | 13.6 |
| 2024 | 2,936 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 601 | 201 | 11.9 |
| 2025 | 2,697 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 155 | 212 | 11.3 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12070 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 90% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-2025 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.