Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HALE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4900512 · 1 · SOUTH FORK REPUBLICAN RI · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:49 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 1908-01-17 — 22nd most senior of the 39 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: BODEN D ALT PT W 27218F (1907-01-16). Immediately behind: VERHOEFF RES (1912-08-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21200.0 | 1908-01-17 | 1938-09-08 | 23.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 21319.0 | 1908-05-15 | 1938-09-08 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30274.0 | 1932-11-20 | 1938-09-08 | 8.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA4433, CA2985, 11CW0263.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4433 | 1 | 1938-09-08 | S |
CA2985 | 3 | 1938-09-08 | S |
11CW0263 | 1 | 1938-09-08 | 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 672 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 594 AF — 88% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 2,022 | 11th lowest of 15 · 301% of median | 121 | 18.8 |
| 1998 | 2,234 | 13th lowest of 15 · 332% of median | 137 | 19.8 |
| 1999 | 2,900 | 15th lowest of 15 · 432% of median | 156 | 21.2 |
| 2000 | 2,474 | 14th lowest of 15 · 368% of median | 159 | 17.2 |
| 2001 | 2,075 | 12th lowest of 15 · 309% of median | 96 | 18.6 |
| 2005 | 89 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 9 | 7.0 |
| 2007 | 43 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 10 | 4.0 |
| 2009 | 169 | 4th lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 31 | 5.3 |
| 2010 | 1,322 | 10th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 192 | 7.0 |
| 2011 | 23 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 14 | 1.2 |
| 2014 | 184 | 5th lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 91 | 3.0 |
| 2015 | 672 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 112 | 5.2 |
| 2016 | 507 | 6th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 113 | 5.1 |
| 2017 | 716 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 100 | 6.1 |
| 2018 | 594 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 103 | 13.0 |
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 (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 | 3936 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2018 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.