Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARMON DITCH SPRUELL #1
Structure dossier · WDID 3200577 · 8 · HARTMAN DRAW · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:48 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1950-08-19 — 215th most senior of the 638 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: J W FRAZIER PUMP (1950-06-01). Immediately behind: HARMON DITCH SPRUELL #2 (1950-08-19).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36755.0 | 1950-08-19 | 1962-08-14 | 0.11 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-92 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1077, 82CW0080, 82CW0055.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1077 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
82CW0080 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | O |
82CW0055 | 1 | 1962-08-14 | 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 14 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 5 AF — 36% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1976 | 30 | 10th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | 78 | 0.3 |
| 1977 | 17 | 9th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 43 | 0.2 |
| 1978 | 44 | 13th lowest of 15 · 314% of median | 107 | 0.3 |
| 1980 | 41 | 12th lowest of 15 · 293% of median | 96 | 0.3 |
| 1981 | 55 | 14th lowest of 15 · 393% of median | 109 | 0.3 |
| 1982 | 55 | 14th lowest of 15 · 393% of median | 105 | 0.3 |
| 1983 | 32 | 11th lowest of 15 · 229% of median | 84 | 0.2 |
| 1984 | 14 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 43 | 0.2 |
| 1985 | 14 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 44 | 0.2 |
| 1986 | 13 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 72 | 0.1 |
| 2006 | 9 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 92 | 0.1 |
| 2007 | 9 | 4th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 52 | 0.1 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2009 | 5 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 56 | 0.1 |
| 2010 | 5 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 51 | 0.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-1 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1481 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% of the irrigation seasons in 1971-2010 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.