Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PEARL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100827 · 1 · POLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:02 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 1891-05-18 — 100th 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: KIMSEY NO 1 DITCH (1891-05-01). Immediately behind: PEARL DITCH ALT NO 1 (1891-05-18).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15113.0 | 1891-05-18 | 1906-08-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUGOTH | 87 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
80CW0299, 80CW0298, CA0112, 80CW0067.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
80CW0299 | 5 | 1911-08-03 | O, S |
80CW0298 | 3 | 1911-08-03 | O, S |
CA0112 | 1 | 1906-08-11 | O |
80CW0067 | 2 | 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 151 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 255 AF — 169% of that, and 15th 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 | 71 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 97 | 0.8 |
| 2011 | 68 | 1st lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 139 | 0.2 |
| 2012 | 212 | 12th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 84 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 157 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 102 | 1.0 |
| 2014 | 213 | 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 97 | 2.4 |
| 2015 | 252 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 125 | 1.6 |
| 2016 | 119 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 87 | 1.7 |
| 2017 | 99 | 4th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 95 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 89 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 66 | 1.8 |
| 2019 | 127 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 100 | 2.0 |
| 2020 | 151 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 66 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 140 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 105 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 170 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 97 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 197 | 11th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 214 | 2.2 |
| 2024 | 255 | 15th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 214 | 3.4 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3982 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1982-2024 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.