Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HARRIS BOHM POTATO DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900578 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:36 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 1878-06-01 — 13th most senior of the 2360 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: UTE TRAIL DITCH (1878-04-10). Immediately behind: HENRY PURRIER OHIO CR D (1878-06-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10379.0 | 1878-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 0.625 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRAUG | 10 |
| 12570.0 | 1884-05-31 | 1906-09-14 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | 47 |
| 14000.0 | 1888-04-30 | 1906-09-14 | 5.125 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | 66 |
| 30667.1254 | 1884-05-01 | 1941-04-29 | 32.75 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | 313 |
| 30667.13666 | 1887-06-01 | 1941-04-29 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | STOIRR | 324 |
| 30667.14 | 1888-04-30 | 1941-04-29 | 12.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 327 |
Legal record & documents
18 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2021, 06CW0187, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2021 | 3 | 1941-04-29 | S |
06CW0187 | 12 | 1941-04-29 | O, S |
CA1325 | 3 | 1906-09-14 | 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 4,278 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 4,219 AF — 99% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 4,575 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 118 | 32.0 |
| 2012 | 1,091 | 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 92 | 17.2 |
| 2013 | 5,539 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 185 | 27.0 |
| 2014 | 4,356 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 137 | 39.5 |
| 2015 | 3,690 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 188 | 30.5 |
| 2016 | 6,996 | 15th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 174 | 44.1 |
| 2017 | 4,278 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 92 | 39.5 |
| 2018 | 2,979 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 173 | 23.3 |
| 2019 | 3,012 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 147 | 23.7 |
| 2020 | 5,651 | 14th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 88 | 38.8 |
| 2021 | 2,817 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 87 | 31.5 |
| 2022 | 4,567 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 81 | 33.0 |
| 2023 | 4,021 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 100 | 32.0 |
| 2024 | 5,564 | 13th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 78 | 52.2 |
| 2025 | 4,219 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 94 | 37.8 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6228 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 58% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.