Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PASTURE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1600610 · 1 · CUCHARAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:36 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 1863-06-15 — 7th most senior of the 1044 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: CALF PASTURE DITCH (1863-06-15). Immediately behind: CS&WD BAKER CREEK INTAKE (1863-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4914.0 | 1863-06-15 | 1889-06-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNFISAUGSNOOTHWLD | 2 |
| 6698.0 | 1868-05-03 | 1889-06-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNFISAUGSNOWLD | 9 |
| 7031.0 | 1869-04-01 | 1889-06-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNFISAUGSNOWLD | 12 |
| 11820.0 | 1882-05-12 | 1889-06-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNFISAUGSNOWLD | 59 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
11CW0083, 02/23/1898, 82CW0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
11CW0083 | 1 | 1898-02-23 | S |
02/23/1898 | 1 | 1898-02-23 | S |
82CW0132 | 4 | 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 0 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 0 AF — —% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1942 | 78 | 11th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 50 | 0.8 |
| 1945 | 81 | 12th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 52 | 0.8 |
| 1947 | 182 | 15th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 93 | 1.0 |
| 1948 | 97 | 13th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 62 | 0.8 |
| 1949 | 97 | 13th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 62 | 0.8 |
| 1977 | 12 | 10th lowest of 15 · —% of median | 7 | 1.0 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 13 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 13 | 0.0 |
| 2017 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 25 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 20 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 28 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 23 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 26 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · —% of median | 22 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-0 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 735 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 3% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2022 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.