Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SNOW BANK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800866 · 1 · SOUTH HUNT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:20 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 1901-06-11 — 292nd 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: ROCKHILL DITCH (1901-02-09). Immediately behind: DRAKE PL1 (1905-03-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19997.18789 | 1901-06-11 | 1905-09-18 | 1.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 159BB |
| 26096.22114 | 1910-07-19 | 1921-06-21 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 189BB |
| 41727.39668 | 1958-08-10 | 1972-05-30 | 4.75 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 37A |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA3926, 06/21/1921, 09/18/1905.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3926 | 1 | 1972-05-30 | S |
06/21/1921 | 1 | 1921-06-21 | S |
09/18/1905 | 2 | 1905-09-18 | 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 684 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 906 AF — 132% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 441 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 73 | 5.6 |
| 2012 | 1,052 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 165 | 6.8 |
| 2013 | 666 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 88 | 5.8 |
| 2014 | 735 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 80 | 7.3 |
| 2015 | 576 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 84 | 4.3 |
| 2016 | 582 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 122 | 4.0 |
| 2017 | 475 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 86 | 4.1 |
| 2018 | 616 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 153 | 6.2 |
| 2019 | 1,189 | 15th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 115 | 10.0 |
| 2020 | 979 | 12th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 117 | 16.6 |
| 2021 | 360 | 1st lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 148 | 3.6 |
| 2022 | 879 | 10th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 167 | 6.5 |
| 2023 | 684 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 130 | 6.0 |
| 2024 | 1,062 | 14th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 127 | 6.9 |
| 2025 | 906 | 11th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 137 | 3.8 |
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 | 8187 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% 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.