Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HAMLET DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7900526 · 1 · HUERFANO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:08 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 1866-05-01 — 13th most senior of the 930 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: HAMLET ALTERNATE POINT (1866-05-01). Immediately behind: MEYER DITCH (1866-05-01).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5965.0 | 1866-05-01 | 1889-06-12 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14 |
| 5965.0 | 1866-05-01 | 1889-06-12 | 1.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13 |
| 5979.0 | 1866-05-15 | 1889-06-12 | 0.15 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18 |
| 13959.0 | 1888-03-20 | 1889-06-12 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 95 |
| 18915.17258 | 1897-04-01 | 1921-10-03 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 286.75 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA1414, CA1280, 97CW0009, 06/12/1889, 03CW0054.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1414 | 1 | 1921-10-03 | S |
CA1280 | 1 | 1889-06-12 | O |
97CW0009 | 2 | 1889-06-12 | O |
06/12/1889 | 1 | 1889-06-12 | O |
03CW0054 | 1 | 1889-06-12 | 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 949 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 828 AF — 87% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 724 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 170 | 2.8 |
| 2012 | 355 | 1st lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 92 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 726 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 157 | 3.6 |
| 2014 | 1,552 | 14th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 297 | 5.5 |
| 2015 | 1,154 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 262 | 5.7 |
| 2016 | 1,111 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 258 | 4.5 |
| 2017 | 949 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 250 | 3.6 |
| 2018 | 758 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 234 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 1,295 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 305 | 6.8 |
| 2020 | 769 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 206 | 3.3 |
| 2021 | 1,021 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 242 | 3.2 |
| 2022 | 966 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 268 | 2.7 |
| 2023 | 899 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 211 | 5.7 |
| 2024 | 1,909 | 15th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 366 | 4.9 |
| 2025 | 828 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 165 | 3.7 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11633 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 48% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2025 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.