Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARRIS & REED DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800740 · 1 · ROARING FORK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:56 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 1883-11-02 — 107th most senior of the 4788 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: DG PUMP & PIPELINE NO 2 (1883-10-01). Immediately behind: DAKOTA PUMP & PL (1883-11-02).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12359.0 | 1883-11-02 | 1889-05-11 | 8.734 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISDOMAUGOTHWLD | 78 |
| 30941.14916 | 1890-11-02 | 1936-08-25 | 14.821 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISDOMAUGOTHWLD | 315 |
Legal record & documents
22 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
CA3082, 96CW0129, 90CW0137, 90CW0074, 03CW0077, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
96CW0129 | 6 | 1936-08-25 | O, S |
90CW0137 | 8 | 1936-08-25 | O, S |
90CW0074 | 2 | 1936-08-25 | S |
03CW0077 | 4 | 1936-08-25 | O, S |
CA0132 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | 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 6,508 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 6,532 AF — 100% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2,592 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | — | 82 | 17.9 |
| 2011 | 4,262 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | — | 150 | 19.6 |
| 2012 | 7,339 | 14th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 707 | 198 | 21.7 |
| 2013 | 5,792 | 4th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 327 | 176 | 20.3 |
| 2014 | 5,769 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 89% of median | — | 172 | 20.3 |
| 2015 | 6,400 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 241 | 177 | 21.3 |
| 2016 | 7,628 | 15th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 1,220 | 214 | 23.3 |
| 2017 | 7,288 | 13th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 1,161 | 214 | 24.1 |
| 2018 | 6,876 | 12th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 1,234 | 214 | 22.8 |
| 2019 | 6,508 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 278 | 214 | 21.1 |
| 2020 | 6,205 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 323 | 214 | 18.9 |
| 2021 | 6,562 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 901 | 159 | 28.4 |
| 2022 | 6,602 | 11th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 1,113 | 201 | 27.9 |
| 2023 | 6,389 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 1,125 | 201 | 23.0 |
| 2024 | 6,532 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 1,124 | 200 | 21.4 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8205 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 69% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.