Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOOSIER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000841 · 1 · DIRTY GEORGE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:42 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 1908-10-02 — 1313th most senior of the 4661 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: HOMESTEAD DITCH (1908-08-31). Immediately behind: WOLFE DITCH (1909-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21459.0 | 1908-10-02 | 1914-06-23 | 5.247 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A104 |
| 21686.0 | 1909-05-17 | 1914-06-23 | 4.05 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A106 |
| 29260.2237 | 1911-04-01 | 1937-05-28 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H82 |
| 55152.33707 | 1942-04-15 | 2001-12-31 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 55152.38076 | 1954-04-01 | 2001-12-31 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR |
Legal record & documents
15 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
11CW0110, 11CW0109, 05CW0020, 05CW0019, 01CW0103, W1690, CA2563, CA0617.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
11CW0110 | 2 | 2005-12-31 | S |
11CW0109 | 2 | 2005-12-31 | S |
05CW0020 | 2 | 2005-12-31 | S |
05CW0019 | 2 | 2005-12-31 | S |
01CW0103 | 2 | 2001-12-31 | S |
W1690 | 1 | 1937-05-28 | S |
CA2563 | 2 | 1937-05-28 | S |
CA0617 | 2 | 1914-06-23 | 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 270 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 54 AF — 20% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 487 | 14th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 116 | 2.7 |
| 2009 | 324 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 94 | 2.2 |
| 2010 | 303 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 123 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 517 | 15th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 153 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 349 | 12th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 149 | 1.2 |
| 2013 | 270 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 115 | 1.5 |
| 2014 | 53 | 4th lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 107 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 42 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 15 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 149 | 6th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 76 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 149 | 6th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 76 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 388 | 13th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 169 | 1.2 |
| 2020 | 1 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.3 |
| 2023 | 288 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 142 | 1.5 |
| 2024 | 54 | 5th lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 19 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-22 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.033).
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 | 4624 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 40% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.