Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NEW HOBO DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7000571 · 1 · ROAN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:23 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 1908-06-06 — 63rd 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: GIBLER DITCH (1890-10-01). Immediately behind: CISSNA DITCH NO 1 (1910-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22965.21341 | 1908-06-06 | 1913-11-10 | 6.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 153A |
| 27132.27059 | 1924-02-01 | 1937-01-11 | 5.46 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181EE |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0027, CA3356.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0027 | 1 | 1937-01-11 | S |
CA3356 | 4 | 1937-01-11 | 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 363 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 42 AF — 12% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 131 | 6th lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 15 | 8.0 |
| 2004 | 375 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 36 | 9.1 |
| 2005 | 2,257 | 15th lowest of 15 · 622% of median | 189 | 9.5 |
| 2006 | 363 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 62 | 3.0 |
| 2007 | 855 | 13th lowest of 15 · 236% of median | 90 | 10.0 |
| 2008 | 637 | 12th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 75 | 9.9 |
| 2009 | 545 | 10th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 84 | 4.9 |
| 2010 | 1,199 | 14th lowest of 15 · 330% of median | 139 | 6.5 |
| 2011 | 629 | 11th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 79 | 4.5 |
| 2013 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 10 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 13 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 8 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 105 | 5th lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 61 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 254 | 7th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 129 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 28 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 22 | 1.5 |
| 2022 | 42 | 4th lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 8 | 3.0 |
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 | 2362 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2022 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.