Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
POMROY DITCH 1
Structure dossier · WDID 4700840 · 1 · CANADIAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:10 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 1889-09-30 — 220th most senior of the 1262 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: HARDWORK DITCH (1889-09-30). Immediately behind: OPEN A DIAMOND DITCH (1889-10-07).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14518.0 | 1889-09-30 | 1892-09-19 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 208(188) |
| 16237.0 | 1894-06-15 | 1902-04-23 | 23.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 274(262) |
| 18160.0 | 1899-09-20 | 1902-04-23 | 15.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 300(285) |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1519, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1519 | 2 | 1902-04-23 | O |
CA0922 | 1 | 1892-09-19 | 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 3,214 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,214 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 | 2,822 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 50 | 42.8 |
| 2012 | 344 | 1st lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 51 | 3.6 |
| 2013 | 832 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 28 | 22.3 |
| 2014 | 1,608 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 59 | 21.6 |
| 2015 | 3,624 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 107 | 26.7 |
| 2016 | 4,759 | 12th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 148 | 28.5 |
| 2017 | 3,247 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 103 | 21.3 |
| 2018 | 1,557 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 47 | 27.4 |
| 2019 | 7,812 | 14th lowest of 15 · 243% of median | 159 | 26.7 |
| 2020 | 3,892 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 138 | 30.3 |
| 2021 | 1,989 | 5th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 69 | 16.9 |
| 2022 | 2,248 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 119 | 26.7 |
| 2023 | 10,373 | 15th lowest of 15 · 323% of median | 182 | 50.8 |
| 2024 | 7,227 | 13th lowest of 15 · 225% of median | 174 | 50.8 |
| 2025 | 3,214 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 183 | 38.1 |
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 (7/10 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3919 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1955-2025 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.