Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ONEILL AND HOLLAND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700743 · 1 · EAGLE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:58 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 1898-06-13 — 204th most senior of the 2162 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: VAIL-JOUFLAS EAGLE DIVR (1898-04-10). Immediately behind: MCHATTON DITCH (1898-08-03).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17696.0 | 1898-06-13 | 1901-03-05 | 0.88 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 180 |
| 21707.17326 | 1897-06-08 | 1909-07-26 | 11.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUGOTH | 279 |
| 30894.20977 | 1907-06-08 | 1936-10-03 | 4.94 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 404 |
| 52230.4361 | 1969-05-26 | 1993-12-31 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | OTH | |
| 52230.52217 | 1992-12-18 | 1993-12-31 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFIRDOMOTH | |
| 62457.61359 | 2017-12-29 | 2021-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.5 | C | IRRFIRWLD |
Legal record & documents
18 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
17CW3249, 93CW0330, 93CW0189, 02CW0109, CA0963, 94CW0083, CA0524.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3249 | 3 | 2021-12-31 | S |
93CW0330 | 1 | 1993-12-31 | S |
93CW0189 | 3 | 1993-12-31 | S |
02CW0109 | 1 | 1993-12-31 | S |
CA0963 | 1 | 1936-10-03 | S |
94CW0083 | 8 | 1936-10-03 | S |
CA0524 | 1 | 1909-07-26 | S |
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 2,332 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,983 AF — 85% of that, and 6th 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 | 1,605 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 147 | 20.0 |
| 2011 | 3,841 | 15th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 176 | 16.4 |
| 2012 | 3,480 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 160 | 16.2 |
| 2013 | 1,691 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 145 | 6.0 |
| 2014 | 1,951 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 179 | 8.0 |
| 2015 | 2,690 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 187 | 10.8 |
| 2016 | 2,766 | 12th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 181 | 11.0 |
| 2017 | 3,629 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 176 | 14.0 |
| 2018 | 2,334 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 183 | 7.3 |
| 2019 | 1,672 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 150 | 6.0 |
| 2020 | 2,332 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 191 | 6.2 |
| 2021 | 2,040 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 181 | 9.8 |
| 2022 | 2,361 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 365 | 7.8 |
| 2023 | 1,548 | 1st lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 365 | 6.4 |
| 2024 | 1,983 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 304 | 7.2 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9757 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2024 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.