Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HILDEBRAND NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900587 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:02 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1878-06-01 — 15th most senior of the 2360 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: HENRY PURRIER OHIO CR D (1878-06-01). Immediately behind: LAWRENCE DITCH (1878-06-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10379.0 | 1878-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 10 |
| 30667.10379 | 1878-06-01 | 1941-04-29 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 282 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2021, 94CW0226, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2021 | 1 | 1941-04-29 | S |
94CW0226 | 2 | 1941-04-29 | O, S |
CA1325 | 1 | 1906-09-14 | 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 1,502 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,908 AF — 127% of that, and 10th 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 | 2,010 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 62 | 21.6 |
| 2012 | 1,470 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 107 | 26.7 |
| 2013 | 1,812 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 126 | 14.0 |
| 2014 | 5,953 | 15th lowest of 15 · 396% of median | 80 | 48.6 |
| 2015 | 1,338 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 90 | 21.6 |
| 2016 | 1,502 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 68 | 15.2 |
| 2017 | 1,405 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 62 | 15.2 |
| 2018 | 473 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 85 | 7.5 |
| 2019 | 2,314 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 61 | 21.6 |
| 2020 | 1,274 | 4th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 68 | 18.4 |
| 2021 | 923 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 60 | 12.7 |
| 2022 | 2,119 | 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 80 | 14.6 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 1,962 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 61 | 19.7 |
| 2025 | 1,908 | 10th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 60 | 21.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3306 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.