Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PHARO DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600775 · 1 · BLUE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:44 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 1881-04-30 — 37th most senior of the 1247 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: GRIGGS DITCH (1881-04-30). Immediately behind: PHARO BAUER DITCH (1881-04-30).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11443.0 | 1881-04-30 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISWLD | 148, 47, 8 |
| 14703.0 | 1890-04-03 | 1910-03-02 | 5.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISWLD | 68 |
| 30254.0 | 1932-10-31 | 1937-10-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISWLD | 246 |
| 31697.0 | 1936-10-13 | 1937-10-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISWLD | 253 |
| 53325.52868 | 1994-09-30 | 1994-12-31 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISWLD |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
94CW0225, 14CW3149, 14CW3139, 14CW3138, 07CW0093, CA1277.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0225 | 7 | 1994-12-31 | O, S |
14CW3149 | 2 | 1994-12-31 | S |
14CW3139 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
14CW3138 | 2 | 1994-12-31 | S |
07CW0093 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA1277 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | 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 1,678 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,678 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2,592 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 193 | 12.0 |
| 2011 | 1,870 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 208 | 10.2 |
| 2012 | 2,366 | 12th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 151 | 17.2 |
| 2013 | 2,609 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 210 | 11.6 |
| 2014 | 2,939 | 15th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 208 | 12.0 |
| 2015 | 834 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 146 | 2.9 |
| 2016 | 1,240 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 200 | 6.9 |
| 2017 | 2,093 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 223 | 7.0 |
| 2018 | 2,120 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 190 | 13.7 |
| 2019 | 1,232 | 4th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 204 | 5.2 |
| 2020 | 1,365 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 177 | 7.0 |
| 2021 | 657 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 93 | 4.0 |
| 2022 | 440 | 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 102 | 3.0 |
| 2023 | 1,448 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 147 | 5.0 |
| 2024 | 1,678 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 180 | 10.0 |
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 (8/10 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5763 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 45% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2024 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.