Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOAGLAND CANAL (SOUTH SPRUCE)
Structure dossier · WDID 3600945 · 1 · SPRUCE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:50 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 1883-04-24 — 48th most senior of the 1247 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: POLLY ABBETT DITCH (1883-04-24). Immediately behind: RANKIN NO 1 DITCH (1883-05-18).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12167.0 | 1883-04-24 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTKWLD | |
| 12249.0 | 1883-07-15 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTKWLD | |
| 12570.0 | 1884-05-31 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTKWLD | |
| 16329.0 | 1894-09-15 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTKWLD | |
| 22964.22029 | 1910-04-25 | 1912-11-16 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
93CW0293, CA1390, W2322.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
93CW0293 | 2 | 1993-12-31 | S |
CA1390 | 1 | 1912-11-16 | S |
W2322 | 4 | 1910-03-02 | 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 708 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 535 AF — 76% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,214 | 15th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 68 | 11.5 |
| 2011 | 1,058 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 111 | 11.5 |
| 2012 | 748 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 156 | 9.1 |
| 2013 | 677 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 103 | 11.1 |
| 2014 | 684 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 94 | 11.5 |
| 2015 | 969 | 12th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 135 | 11.1 |
| 2016 | 392 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 27 | 11.5 |
| 2017 | 644 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 99 | 7.3 |
| 2018 | 334 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 60 | 6.1 |
| 2019 | 818 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 74 | 9.3 |
| 2020 | 747 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 76 | 11.5 |
| 2021 | 94 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 22 | 3.4 |
| 2022 | 708 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 63 | 15.5 |
| 2023 | 1,125 | 14th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 120 | 14.9 |
| 2024 | 535 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 50 | 9.5 |
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 (7/10 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 | 2047 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1985-2024 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.