Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HOAGLUND-FRASIER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7000555 · 1 · KIMBALL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:25 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 1885-06-01 — 30th most senior of the 519 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: GERRICKE DITCH (1885-06-01). Immediately behind: KIMBALL DITCH (1885-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12936.0 | 1885-06-01 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 13255.0 | 1886-04-16 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 24822.23155 | 1913-05-25 | 1920-09-27 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 156BB |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0293, CA2123, W0383.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0293 | 2 | 1920-09-27 | S |
CA2123 | 1 | 1920-09-27 | S |
W0383 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | 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 113 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2011, came in at 56 AF — 50% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978 | 628 | 14th lowest of 15 · 556% of median | 96 | 5.0 |
| 1979 | 1,697 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1502% of median | 149 | 11.9 |
| 1983 | 6 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 7 | 0.5 |
| 1984 | 84 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 21 | 2.4 |
| 1985 | 182 | 10th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 19 | 5.1 |
| 1986 | 181 | 9th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 61 | 1.5 |
| 1987 | 366 | 13th lowest of 15 · 324% of median | 124 | 1.5 |
| 1988 | 27 | 5th lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 10 | 1.5 |
| 1989 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1990 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1993 | 113 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 43 | 1.5 |
| 1998 | 206 | 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 99 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 314 | 12th lowest of 15 · 278% of median | 152 | 1.2 |
| 2008 | 10 | 4th lowest of 15 · 9% of median | 14 | 0.4 |
| 2011 | 56 | 6th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 31 | 1.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1097 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 13% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2011 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.