Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
THODE WASTE WATER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900678 · 1 · HARVEY GAP · 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 1911-07-17 — 337th most senior of the 1758 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: JACKSON SPRING PIPELINE (1911-06-23). Immediately behind: WOODTICK DITCH (1911-08-08).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37503.22477 | 1911-07-17 | 1966-11-10 | 1.23 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 281 |
| 37503.25639 | 1920-03-13 | 1966-11-10 | 1.77 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 286 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA4914.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4914 | 2 | 1966-11-10 | 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 89 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2003, came in at 31 AF — 35% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | 75 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 110 | 0.5 |
| 1990 | 106 | 12th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 145 | 0.9 |
| 1991 | 90 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 181 | 0.2 |
| 1992 | 84 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 176 | 0.3 |
| 1993 | 89 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 160 | 0.4 |
| 1994 | 101 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 71 | 0.9 |
| 1995 | 87 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 154 | 0.4 |
| 1996 | 69 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 131 | 0.4 |
| 1997 | 130 | 15th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 173 | 0.4 |
| 1998 | 122 | 14th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 176 | 0.3 |
| 1999 | 113 | 13th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 183 | 0.4 |
| 2000 | 97 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 179 | 0.4 |
| 2001 | 48 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 120 | 0.2 |
| 2002 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 161 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 31 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 78 | 0.2 |
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 | 4372 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 70% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2003 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.