Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
POTHOLE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300881 · 1 · NORTH FORK WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:03 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 1889-09-24 — 124th 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: NIMERICK DITCH (1889-09-24). Immediately behind: LINDEN NO 1 WELL (1890-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14512.0 | 1889-09-24 | 1889-05-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 113 |
| 21430.19252 | 1902-09-17 | 1909-09-07 | 1.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 173 |
| 22169.15646 | 1892-11-01 | 1911-09-05 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 183 |
| 32172.15858 | 1893-06-01 | 1942-05-26 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 366 |
| 32172.19617 | 1903-09-17 | 1942-05-26 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 408 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0624, 90CW0054, 09/07/1909, W3419-77.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
90CW0054 | 2 | 1942-05-26 | S |
09/07/1909 | 1 | 1909-09-07 | S |
W3419-77 | 1 | 1889-05-10 | 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 1,996 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,564 AF — 128% of that, and 14th 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 | 2,662 | 15th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 154 | 11.7 |
| 2011 | 2,445 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 120 | 11.7 |
| 2012 | 2,427 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 143 | 11.7 |
| 2013 | 2,161 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 122 | 11.7 |
| 2014 | 1,739 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 115 | 10.4 |
| 2015 | 1,413 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 83 | 13.7 |
| 2016 | 1,386 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 107 | 12.0 |
| 2017 | 1,996 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 155 | 11.1 |
| 2018 | 2,502 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 145 | 11.0 |
| 2019 | 2,268 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 121 | 11.6 |
| 2020 | 50 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 78 | 0.3 |
| 2021 | 1,928 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 172 | 6.1 |
| 2023 | 1,461 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 167 | 16.0 |
| 2024 | 1,131 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 150 | 9.1 |
| 2025 | 2,564 | 14th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 158 | 13.9 |
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 | 6932 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1966-2025 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.