Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HILL CREEK NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300696 · 1 · HILL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:38 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 1901-09-21 — 728th 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: POTTER DITCH (1915-06-02). Immediately behind: LEWIS DITCH (1910-06-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24334.18891 | 1901-09-21 | 1920-08-16 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 239 |
| 32172.20233 | 1905-05-25 | 1942-05-26 | 5.89 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 422 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0624, CA0327, 08/16/1920.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
CA0327 | 1 | 1920-08-16 | S |
08/16/1920 | 2 | 1920-08-16 | 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 855 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 725 AF — 85% of that, and 7th 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 | 1,163 | 11th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 149 | 4.5 |
| 2009 | 2,214 | 15th lowest of 15 · 259% of median | 96 | 16.0 |
| 2010 | 1,391 | 12th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 88 | 10.0 |
| 2011 | 1,690 | 13th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 111 | 11.2 |
| 2012 | 1,753 | 14th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | 155 | 7.5 |
| 2013 | 1,031 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 121 | 6.1 |
| 2014 | 1,087 | 10th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 92 | 7.3 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 8 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 475 | 6th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 76 | 4.1 |
| 2017 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 273 | 4th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 73 | 1.9 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 329 | 5th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 76 | 2.4 |
| 2024 | 855 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 114 | 4.4 |
| 2025 | 725 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 90 | 4.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-91 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.019).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5825 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.