Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOLADAY NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3200587 · 1 · HARTMAN DRAW · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:54 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 1943-03-20 — 203rd 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: MCMAHAN DITCH (1942-05-01). Immediately behind: HOLADAY NO 2 DITCH NO 2 (1943-03-20).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34046.0 | 1943-03-20 | 1962-08-14 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-78 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0285, CA1077, 82CW0082.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0285 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
CA1077 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
82CW0082 | 1 | 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 211 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 211 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 228 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 99 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 116 | 4th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | — | 130 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 99 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | — | 103 | 0.7 |
| 2001 | 144 | 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | — | 134 | 0.6 |
| 2002 | 29 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | — | 43 | 0.5 |
| 2003 | 163 | 7th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | — | 75 | 2.0 |
| 2004 | 309 | 13th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | — | 130 | 1.3 |
| 2005 | 319 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | — | 162 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 392 | 15th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | — | 180 | 1.3 |
| 2007 | 149 | 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | — | 69 | 1.2 |
| 2008 | 283 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | — | 160 | 1.2 |
| 2009 | 254 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | — | 139 | 1.4 |
| 2010 | 213 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | — | 97 | 1.2 |
| 2011 | 8 | 1st lowest of 15 · 4% of median | — | 23 | 0.2 |
| 2012 | 211 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 109 | 150 | 1.1 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4896 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 47% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2012 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.