Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HALLEY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4001436 · 1 · BUTTERMILK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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 1896-06-01 — 1521st 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: JEFFERS GULCH W W DITCH (1896-04-01). Immediately behind: SCOTLAND PEAK RESERVOIR (1896-10-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29260.16954 | 1896-06-01 | 1937-05-28 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H23 |
| 32627.0 | 1939-05-01 | 1954-03-20 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | J236 |
| 54421.31897 | 1937-05-01 | 1999-12-31 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
99CW0049, 21CW3067, CA3503, 75CW0208, CA2563, 17CW0001.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0049 | 1 | 1999-12-31 | S |
21CW3067 | 1 | 1999-12-31 | S |
CA3503 | 2 | 1954-03-20 | S |
75CW0208 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA2563 | 1 | 1937-05-28 | S |
17CW0001 | 1 | 1937-05-28 | 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 621 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 709 AF — 114% of that, and 10th 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 | 1,132 | 13th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 183 | 4.0 |
| 2011 | 1,283 | 14th lowest of 15 · 207% of median | 187 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 1,745 | 15th lowest of 15 · 281% of median | 206 | 6.0 |
| 2013 | 720 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 169 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 256 | 1st lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 161 | 2.1 |
| 2015 | 264 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 88 | 2.8 |
| 2016 | 521 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 137 | 3.0 |
| 2017 | 564 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 114 | 4.3 |
| 2018 | 330 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 103 | 3.7 |
| 2019 | 561 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 138 | 3.4 |
| 2020 | 621 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 202 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 418 | 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 174 | 3.4 |
| 2022 | 765 | 12th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 208 | 2.5 |
| 2023 | 661 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 182 | 3.3 |
| 2024 | 709 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 164 | 3.2 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6318 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1980-2024 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.