Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOWLES AND HOLLAND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800547 · 1 · CRYSTAL RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:48 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 1884-04-09 — 110th most senior of the 4788 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: OSCAR CERISE WELL 3 (1883-12-31). Immediately behind: THOMAS NO 2 DITCH (1884-04-10).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12518.0 | 1884-04-09 | 1889-05-11 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOM | 81 |
| 25494.1368 | 1887-06-15 | 1920-02-21 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOM | 180B |
| 30941.14776 | 1890-06-15 | 1936-08-25 | 14.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNDOM | 311 |
| 53279.0 | 1995-11-15 | 1995-12-31 | 3.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDRECFISFIROTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
18 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
95CW0317, 18CW3171, 03CW0146, CA3082, 88CW0421, CA2086, 10CW0060, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
95CW0317 | 1 | 1995-12-31 | S |
18CW3171 | 1 | 1995-12-31 | S |
03CW0146 | 1 | 1995-12-31 | S |
CA3082 | 3 | 1936-08-25 | S |
88CW0421 | 6 | 1936-08-25 | O, S |
CA2086 | 1 | 1920-02-21 | S |
10CW0060 | 4 | 1920-02-21 | O, S |
CA0132 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | 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 2,467 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 2,287 AF — 93% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2,929 | 13th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 195 | 10.9 |
| 2011 | 2,527 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 162 | 8.4 |
| 2012 | 3,125 | 15th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 220 | 10.5 |
| 2013 | 2,107 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 187 | 10.0 |
| 2014 | 2,803 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 237 | 11.6 |
| 2015 | 2,307 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 365 | 14.0 |
| 2016 | 2,213 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 366 | 12.7 |
| 2017 | 2,839 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 365 | 11.4 |
| 2018 | 1,768 | 1st lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 365 | 7.7 |
| 2019 | 2,151 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 365 | 10.1 |
| 2020 | 2,467 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 8.9 |
| 2021 | 2,808 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 365 | 10.1 |
| 2022 | 2,397 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 365 | 9.9 |
| 2023 | 2,939 | 14th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 365 | 11.1 |
| 2024 | 2,287 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 305 | 12.7 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10963 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 82% of the irrigation seasons in 1962-2024 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.