Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HENRY NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300612 · 1 · BLACKTAIL CREEK · 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 1902-06-15 — 154th most senior of the 1231 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: SHOSHONE POWER PLANT (1902-01-07). Immediately behind: JOLLY HOMESTEAD NO 1 D (1902-06-25).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20427.19158 | 1902-06-15 | 1907-12-09 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 179 |
| 22232.18596 | 1900-11-30 | 1913-11-10 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 227 |
| 33023.23162 | 1913-06-01 | 1956-02-07 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 296 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1123, 91CW0187, CA0466.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1123 | 1 | 1956-02-07 | S |
91CW0187 | 1 | 1913-11-10 | S |
CA0466 | 1 | 1907-12-09 | 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 40 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 249 AF — 622% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 40 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 90 | 0.3 |
| 1995 | 94 | 11th lowest of 15 · 235% of median | 119 | 0.7 |
| 1996 | 38 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 80 | 0.3 |
| 1997 | 236 | 13th lowest of 15 · 590% of median | 108 | 1.4 |
| 1998 | 266 | 15th lowest of 15 · 665% of median | 48 | 2.8 |
| 1999 | 60 | 9th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 86 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 121 | 12th lowest of 15 · 302% of median | 77 | 0.8 |
| 2001 | 8 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 43 | 0.1 |
| 2002 | 4 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 21 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 18 | 5th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 58 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 14 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 70 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 27 | 6th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 64 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 8 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 40 | 0.1 |
| 2021 | 85 | 10th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 37 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 249 | 14th lowest of 15 · 622% of median | 64 | 3.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2686 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2022 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.