Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARBISON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100704 · 1 · TONAHUTU CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:19 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 1885-09-01 — 51st 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: COLE NO 2 DITCH (NORTH BANK) (1885-07-31). Immediately behind: GRAND LAKE METRO REC DISTRICT AP (1885-09-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13028.0 | 1885-09-01 | 1906-08-11 | 13.3 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 38 |
| 13028.0 | 1885-09-01 | 1906-08-11 | 0.625 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 38 |
| 15902.0 | 1893-07-15 | 1911-07-21 | 4.6 | 0.0 | C | FIS | 99 |
| 20676.15902 | 1893-07-15 | 1911-08-03 | 4.46 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 199 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
9 court cases:
95CW0030, 86CW0362, 87CW0195, W2502, CA0183, 13CW0012, CA0184, 96CW0365, 88CW0402.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
95CW0030 | 1 | 1986-12-31 | S |
86CW0362 | 1 | 1986-12-31 | S |
87CW0195 | 1 | 1955-10-12 | O |
W2502 | 2 | 1911-08-03 | S |
CA0183 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | S |
13CW0012 | 2 | 1911-08-03 | S |
CA0184 | 1 | 1911-07-21 | O |
96CW0365 | 1 | 1906-08-11 | O |
88CW0402 | 1 | 1906-08-11 | 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 244 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 375 AF — 154% of that, and 12th 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 | 397 | 13th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 129 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 672 | 14th lowest of 15 · 275% of median | 114 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 81 | 1st lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 63 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 170 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 121 | 1.3 |
| 2014 | 193 | 6th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 130 | 1.5 |
| 2015 | 244 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 126 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 100 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 79 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 342 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 109 | 6.5 |
| 2018 | 198 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 134 | 2.7 |
| 2019 | 293 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 110 | 2.5 |
| 2020 | 292 | 9th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 81 | 5.1 |
| 2021 | 159 | 4th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 127 | 1.2 |
| 2022 | 810 | 15th lowest of 15 · 332% of median | 167 | 3.4 |
| 2023 | 110 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 162 | 0.6 |
| 2024 | 375 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 146 | 3.1 |
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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6844 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 65% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.