Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HAMMOND AND CLARK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7100546 · 1 · DOLORES RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:29 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1881-05-10 — 18th most senior of the 279 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: DOLORES WATER DIVR HGT (1881-05-01). Immediately behind: GOULD & MORIARITY DITCH (1882-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11453.0 | 1881-05-10 | 1892-02-01 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDDOMSTK | D-9 |
| 15143.0 | 1891-06-17 | 1892-02-01 | 3.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRIND | D-26 |
| 30667.29279 | 1930-03-01 | 1963-03-22 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-40 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0967, W1172, CA0473, 84CW0170.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0967 | 3 | 1963-03-22 | O, S |
W1172 | 2 | 1892-02-01 | O |
CA0473 | 3 | 1892-02-01 | O |
84CW0170 | 4 | 1892-02-01 | 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 217 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 304 AF — 140% of that, and 7th lowest of the 9 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 317 | 8th lowest of 9 · 146% of median | — | 74 | 2.5 |
| 2004 | — | no recorded volume | 115 | 0 | — |
| 2005 | — | no recorded volume | 972 | 0 | — |
| 2006 | — | no recorded volume | 1,448 | 0 | — |
| 2007 | — | no recorded volume | 1,325 | 0 | — |
| 2008 | — | no recorded volume | 1,035 | 0 | — |
| 2009 | — | no recorded volume | 821 | 0 | — |
| 2017 | 353 | 9th lowest of 9 · 163% of median | — | 105 | 6.5 |
| 2018 | 22 | 1st lowest of 9 · 10% of median | — | 55 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 132 | 3rd lowest of 9 · 61% of median | — | 259 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 51 | 2nd lowest of 9 · 24% of median | — | 84 | 0.7 |
| 2022 | 139 | 4th lowest of 9 · 64% of median | — | 174 | 0.6 |
| 2023 | 217 | 5th lowest of 9 · 100% of median | — | 188 | 0.7 |
| 2024 | 238 | 6th lowest of 9 · 110% of median | — | 243 | 0.7 |
| 2025 | 304 | 7th lowest of 9 · 140% of median | — | 304 | 0.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 9 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 | 5562 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 34% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.