Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARDWICK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800732 · 1 · FOURMILE 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 (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 1882-04-05 — 30th 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: HARRIS NO 2 DITCH NEW PT (1882-03-25). Immediately behind: LOWER DITCH (1882-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11783.0 | 1882-04-05 | 1890-05-03 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 21A |
| 30941.25336 | 1919-05-15 | 1936-08-25 | 2.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 406E |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3082, CA0316.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
CA0316 | 1 | 1890-05-03 | 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 339 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 339 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1984 | 452 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 115 | 2.0 |
| 1985 | 329 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 84 | 2.0 |
| 1986 | 424 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 184 | 2.0 |
| 1987 | 252 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 124 | 2.0 |
| 1988 | 976 | 15th lowest of 15 · 288% of median | 203 | 4.0 |
| 1989 | 819 | 14th lowest of 15 · 242% of median | 201 | 4.0 |
| 1990 | 63 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 62 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 69 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 65 | 0.6 |
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 372 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 113 | 2.9 |
| 2010 | 177 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 86 | 2.1 |
| 2011 | 626 | 13th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 73 | 7.5 |
| 2014 | 544 | 12th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 75 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 308 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 103 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 339 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 56 | 3.9 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2572 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1967-2019 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.