Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PLEASANT VIEW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6000737 · 1 · MAVERICK DRAW · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:08 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 1907-01-18 — 424th most senior of the 2893 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: BEAR CREEK CALUMET PL (1906-09-30). Immediately behind: N CR W 8 (1907-03-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20836.0 | 1907-01-18 | 1911-06-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 115 |
| 28911.28052 | 1926-10-21 | 1933-10-16 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 216 |
| 50769.22644 | 1911-12-31 | 1989-12-31 | 0.05 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
89CW0143, CA3785, CA1627.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
89CW0143 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
CA3785 | 1 | 1933-10-16 | S |
CA1627 | 1 | 1911-06-03 | 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 98 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2001, came in at 97 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 223 | 14th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 365 | 0.5 |
| 1988 | 122 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 366 | 0.3 |
| 1989 | 143 | 12th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 1990 | 88 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 364 | 0.3 |
| 1991 | 68 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 1992 | 80 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 319 | 0.2 |
| 1993 | 96 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 1994 | 86 | 4th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 365 | 0.3 |
| 1995 | 116 | 9th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 365 | 0.3 |
| 1996 | 35 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 277 | 0.1 |
| 1997 | 122 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 304 | 0.5 |
| 1998 | 188 | 13th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 304 | 1.4 |
| 1999 | 250 | 15th lowest of 15 · 255% of median | 167 | 1.5 |
| 2000 | 98 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 204 | 0.5 |
| 2001 | 97 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 174 | 0.9 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 9220 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2001 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.