Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HALL GULCH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300675 · 1 · HALL GULCH · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:08 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1900-06-04 — 1005th most senior of the 3293 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: HERWICK DITCH 2 (1900-04-15). Immediately behind: E H IMES DITCH (1901-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32172.18417 | 1900-06-04 | 1942-05-26 | 0.95 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 388 |
| 32172.19889 | 1904-06-15 | 1942-05-26 | 2.22 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 416C |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA0624.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0624 | 2 | 1942-05-26 | 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 164 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 106 AF — 65% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 182 | 11th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 88 | 1.5 |
| 2000 | 160 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 119 | 1.5 |
| 2001 | 185 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 134 | 1.0 |
| 2002 | 181 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 121 | 1.0 |
| 2003 | 175 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 147 | 1.0 |
| 2004 | 256 | 13th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 175 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 301 | 15th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 149 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 164 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 190 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 152 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 154 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 129 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 93 | 1.0 |
| 2009 | 127 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 74 | 3.0 |
| 2010 | 266 | 14th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 144 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 122 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 84 | 1.3 |
| 2017 | 137 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 88 | 1.1 |
| 2025 | 106 | 1st lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 113 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-3 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
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 | 4729 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2025 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.