Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
COLLINS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800591 · 1 · MIDDLE HUNT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:14 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 1888-06-01 — 66th most senior of the 3097 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: GROUSE CREEK DITCH (1888-05-25). Immediately behind: MAX HOFF DITCH (1888-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14032.0 | 1888-06-01 | 1892-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | (51)52 |
| 22074.17819 | 1898-10-14 | 1910-09-19 | 2.33 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 143AA |
| 22479.2178 | 1909-08-19 | 1911-09-18 | 2.16 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 188A |
| 37688.25331 | 1919-05-10 | 1957-06-22 | 4.83 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 410-C |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA2902, 84CW0071, 09/18/1911, CA0660, 79CW0027.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2902 | 1 | 1957-06-22 | S |
84CW0071 | 1 | 1911-09-18 | S |
09/18/1911 | 2 | 1911-09-18 | S |
CA0660 | 1 | 1910-09-19 | S |
79CW0027 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
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 593 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 18 AF — 3% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 749 | 14th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 121 | 4.8 |
| 2012 | 734 | 13th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 181 | 7.2 |
| 2013 | 414 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 59 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 481 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 69 | 6.7 |
| 2015 | 762 | 15th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 127 | 6.5 |
| 2016 | 593 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 117 | 6.7 |
| 2017 | 269 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 42 | 6.0 |
| 2018 | 228 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 40 | 4.6 |
| 2019 | 669 | 12th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 86 | 11.0 |
| 2020 | 658 | 11th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 148 | 7.5 |
| 2021 | 634 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 140 | 4.1 |
| 2022 | 309 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 68 | 4.5 |
| 2023 | 489 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 112 | 7.0 |
| 2024 | 599 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 127 | 6.9 |
| 2025 | 18 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 94 | 0.1 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9335 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 47% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2025 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.