Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NORTH HUNT CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800801 · 1 · NORTH HUNT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:33 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 1889-04-13 — 90th 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: COLEMAN DITCH ALT PT (1889-04-10). Immediately behind: SAGE HEN DITCH (1889-04-13).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14348.0 | 1889-04-13 | 1892-09-22 | 3.53 | 0.0 | C | IRR | (66)72 |
| 22446.21349 | 1908-06-14 | 1911-07-19 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 179 |
| 33782.22431 | 1911-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 301 |
| 48178.0 | 1981-11-27 | 1981-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 50403.48698 | 1983-05-01 | 1988-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
88CW0043, 84CW0039, 81CW0249, CA2475, 07/19/1911, W0446-73, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0043 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
84CW0039 | 1 | 1981-12-31 | S |
81CW0249 | 1 | 1981-12-31 | S |
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
07/19/1911 | 1 | 1911-07-19 | S |
W0446-73 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
09/22/1892 | 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 104 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 311 | 11th lowest of 15 · 299% of median | 67 | 3.5 |
| 2011 | 296 | 10th lowest of 15 · 285% of median | 38 | 4.7 |
| 2012 | 156 | 9th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 38 | 2.6 |
| 2013 | 613 | 14th lowest of 15 · 589% of median | 71 | 7.7 |
| 2014 | 524 | 12th lowest of 15 · 504% of median | 67 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 565 | 13th lowest of 15 · 543% of median | 63 | 6.9 |
| 2016 | 641 | 15th lowest of 15 · 616% of median | 69 | 6.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 55 | 7th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 59 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 9 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 104 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 107 | 0.5 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-22 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.021).
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6269 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% 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.