Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PEASE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300867 · 1 · WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:06 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 1888-10-01 — 680th most senior of the 3293 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: JAMES GONTERMAN DITCH (1903-08-19). Immediately behind: GRAHAM WELL NO 2 (1910-09-10).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22166.14154 | 1888-10-01 | 1910-09-12 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 180 |
| 32172.16862 | 1896-03-01 | 1942-05-26 | 5.98 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 369 |
| 35679.16862 | 1896-03-01 | 1958-11-26 | 7.68 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 509 |
| 38471.0 | 1955-05-01 | 1958-11-26 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 562 |
| 39180.0 | 1957-04-09 | 1958-11-26 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 594 |
| 41607.0 | 1963-12-01 | 1966-11-21 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 735 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA1269, 84CW0219, CA0999, CA0624, 09/12/1910.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1269 | 2 | 1966-11-21 | S |
84CW0219 | 1 | 1966-11-21 | S |
CA0999 | 4 | 1958-11-26 | S |
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
09/12/1910 | 2 | 1910-09-12 | 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 3,258 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,619 AF — 111% of that, and 9th 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 | 3,090 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 184 | 26.0 |
| 2012 | 5,900 | 13th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 187 | 28.0 |
| 2013 | 3,193 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 161 | 26.0 |
| 2014 | 6,258 | 14th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 160 | 25.8 |
| 2015 | 4,470 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 173 | 23.6 |
| 2016 | 3,080 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 171 | 24.8 |
| 2017 | 2,818 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 103 | 27.2 |
| 2018 | 1,701 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 34 | 26.0 |
| 2019 | 2,764 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 54 | 26.3 |
| 2020 | 181 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 12 | 9.1 |
| 2021 | 6,286 | 15th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 190 | 27.2 |
| 2022 | 5,358 | 12th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 191 | 27.2 |
| 2023 | 3,992 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 169 | 27.2 |
| 2024 | 3,258 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 201 | 27.2 |
| 2025 | 3,619 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 107 | 25.7 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12864 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 80% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.