Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARRIS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900618 · 1 · SAN JUAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:10 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1907-06-01 — 166th most senior of the 853 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: DEER CREEK DITCH (1905-06-02). Immediately behind: OBANNON DITCH (1909-05-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22962.2097 | 1907-06-01 | 1928-06-05 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #198 |
| 42848.0 | 1967-04-25 | 1968-12-19 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 68-282 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0308-D, CA0308.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1928-06-05 | S |
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 909 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,055 AF — 116% of that, and 13th 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 | 824 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 139 | 5.2 |
| 2012 | 415 | 4th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 101 | 4.2 |
| 2013 | 460 | 5th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 75 | 4.4 |
| 2014 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 1,036 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 167 | 3.5 |
| 2016 | 1,275 | 14th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 168 | 4.0 |
| 2017 | 1,382 | 15th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 197 | 4.0 |
| 2018 | 785 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 131 | 3.5 |
| 2019 | 916 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 145 | 4.5 |
| 2020 | 1,013 | 11th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 184 | 5.0 |
| 2021 | 916 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 169 | 3.5 |
| 2022 | 909 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 145 | 5.2 |
| 2023 | 361 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 115 | 2.0 |
| 2024 | 36 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 65 | 0.3 |
| 2025 | 1,055 | 13th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 157 | 5.1 |
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 | 3728 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.