Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PHELPS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1200507 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:40 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 1882-05-31 — 267th most senior of the 1967 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: OAK(GROVE)CREEK DITCH (1882-05-03). Immediately behind: WOODS PASTURE DITCH (1882-05-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11839.0 | 1882-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 273 |
| 15126.0 | 1891-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 399 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02/03/1894 | 2 | 1894-02-03 | 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 119 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1972, came in at 60 AF — 50% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1926 | 63 | 5th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 42 | 1.0 |
| 1928 | 231 | 14th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | 212 | 1.0 |
| 1929 | 60 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 57 | 1.0 |
| 1935 | 165 | 12th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 89 | 1.0 |
| 1936 | 230 | 13th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 120 | 1.0 |
| 1937 | 162 | 11th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 120 | 0.8 |
| 1938 | 99 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 57 | 1.0 |
| 1939 | 274 | 15th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 142 | 1.0 |
| 1940 | 56 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 46 | 1.5 |
| 1941 | 99 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 52 | 1.0 |
| 1943 | 119 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 86 | 1.0 |
| 1944 | 44 | 1st lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 25 | 1.0 |
| 1970 | 131 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 73 | 1.0 |
| 1971 | 123 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 65 | 1.0 |
| 1972 | 60 | 3rd 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1744 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 14% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-1972 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.