Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SAGE HEN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800844 · 1 · NORTH HUNT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:52 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 — 91st 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: NORTH HUNT CREEK DITCH (1889-04-13). Immediately behind: LARSEN DITCH (1889-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14348.0 | 1889-04-13 | 1892-09-22 | 1.77 | 0.0 | C | IRR | (66)72 |
| 26987.17003 | 1896-07-20 | 1923-11-27 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1391/2 |
| 33782.26084 | 1921-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 2.31 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 325 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
83CW0082, CA2475, CA1532, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
83CW0082 | 2 | 1983-12-31 | S |
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
CA1532 | 2 | 1923-11-27 | S |
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 215 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 306 AF — 142% of that, and 11th 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 | 207 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 56 | 3.1 |
| 2011 | 127 | 5th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 49 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 115 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 85 | 2.2 |
| 2013 | 231 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 166 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 198 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 147 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 106 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 59 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 83 | 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 55 | 2.0 |
| 2018 | 115 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 137 | 0.5 |
| 2019 | 373 | 12th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 105 | 3.2 |
| 2020 | 503 | 15th lowest of 15 · 234% of median | 162 | 4.0 |
| 2021 | 215 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 157 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 480 | 14th lowest of 15 · 223% of median | 159 | 3.2 |
| 2023 | 259 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 88 | 3.2 |
| 2024 | 376 | 13th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 139 | 2.1 |
| 2025 | 306 | 11th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 95 | 1.6 |
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 | 7541 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 38% of the irrigation seasons in 1933-2025 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.