Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DRY HOLLOW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500574 · 1 · DRY HOLLOW CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:13 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 1919-04-01 — 222nd most senior of the 1378 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: GOLDMAN WELL 1-CLIFFORD (1922-12-31). Immediately behind: WILLIAMS WASTE WATER D (1922-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 27154.25292 | 1919-04-01 | 1925-06-01 | 0.48 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 155 |
| 34825.30071 | 1932-05-01 | 1953-03-02 | 1.88 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 194 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4072, CA2487.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4072 | 1 | 1953-03-02 | S |
CA2487 | 2 | 1925-06-01 | 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 432 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 222 AF — 51% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 605 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 123 | 2.5 |
| 1998 | 605 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 123 | 2.5 |
| 1999 | 610 | 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 124 | 2.5 |
| 2000 | 888 | 15th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 183 | 2.5 |
| 2001 | 766 | 14th lowest of 15 · 177% of median | 194 | 2.0 |
| 2003 | 65 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 67 | 0.5 |
| 2004 | 139 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 8 | 10.0 |
| 2005 | 432 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 79 | 4.0 |
| 2006 | 399 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 94 | 5.0 |
| 2007 | 329 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 60 | 3.0 |
| 2008 | 454 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 60 | 5.0 |
| 2009 | 454 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 60 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 205 | 4th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 58 | 2.8 |
| 2015 | 187 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 94 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 222 | 5th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 29 | 4.0 |
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 | 1943 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2016 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.