Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DEBERARD DITCH (FRASER RIVER)
Structure dossier · WDID 5100602 · 1 · FRASER RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:26 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 1883-05-30 — 167th most senior of the 2208 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: SCYBERT DITCH & LATERAL (1881-06-30). Immediately behind: BUNTE HIGHLINE DITCH (1883-08-31).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20676.12203 | 1883-05-30 | 1911-08-03 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 150 |
| 34241.18414 | 1900-06-01 | 1952-11-07 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 450A |
| 36793.0 | 1950-09-26 | 1952-11-07 | 0.0 | 2.0 | C | IRRDOMAUG | 515 |
| 54056.0 | 1997-12-31 | 1997-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
97CW0290, W1881, CA0814, CA0183.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
97CW0290 | 1 | 1997-12-31 | S |
W1881 | 6 | 1952-11-07 | S |
CA0814 | 2 | 1952-11-07 | S |
CA0183 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | 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 437 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 2,222 | 15th lowest of 15 · 508% of median | — | 149 | 10.0 |
| 2007 | 660 | 14th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | — | 125 | 4.6 |
| 2008 | 499 | 9th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | — | 128 | 4.7 |
| 2009 | 635 | 12th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | — | 142 | 4.9 |
| 2010 | 538 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | — | 148 | 3.9 |
| 2011 | 646 | 13th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | — | 116 | 32.0 |
| 2012 | 437 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 156 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 250 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | — | 99 | 3.8 |
| 2015 | 383 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | — | 168 | 3.5 |
| 2016 | 205 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | — | 221 | 2.0 |
| 2017 | 282 | 6th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | — | 256 | 2.1 |
| 2018 | 518 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | — | 235 | 3.8 |
| 2019 | 264 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | — | 198 | 1.8 |
| 2020 | 245 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | — | 165 | 1.5 |
| 2021 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-41 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3847 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2021 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.