Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARVARD DITCH NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 1100796 · 1 · THREE ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:39 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 1865-11-30 — 28th most senior of the 1489 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: EVANS DITCH (1865-09-30). Immediately behind: HARRINGTON DITCH (1866-03-10).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5813.0 | 1865-11-30 | 1890-06-19 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 6 |
| 6940.0 | 1868-12-31 | 1890-06-19 | 2.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 27 |
| 13048.0 | 1885-09-21 | 1890-06-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 145 |
| 14002.0 | 1888-05-02 | 1890-06-19 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 168 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA2100, 11CW0089.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2100 | 4 | 1890-06-19 | O |
11CW0089 | 6 | 1890-06-19 | 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 437 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 180 AF — 41% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 545 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 183 | 3.0 |
| 2001 | 478 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 140 | 2.7 |
| 2002 | 70 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 104 | 0.5 |
| 2003 | 532 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 196 | 4.2 |
| 2009 | 322 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 188 | 1.3 |
| 2011 | 603 | 15th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 215 | 2.7 |
| 2012 | 231 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 209 | 0.9 |
| 2013 | 446 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 182 | 1.8 |
| 2015 | 392 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 169 | 4.5 |
| 2016 | 437 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 192 | 2.1 |
| 2017 | 497 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 189 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 239 | 5th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 144 | 1.4 |
| 2019 | 572 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 190 | 3.5 |
| 2020 | 191 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 140 | 0.8 |
| 2021 | 180 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 185 | 0.7 |
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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3057 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 13% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2021 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.