Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GOSS PRIVATE DITCH 2
Structure dossier · WDID 0500605 · 1 · SAINT VRAIN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:52 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 1865-06-30 — 82nd most senior of the 1289 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: GOSS PRIVATE DITCH 1 (1865-06-30). Immediately behind: WEBSTER MCCASLIN DITCH (1865-07-05).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5660.0 | 1865-06-30 | 1882-06-02 | 4.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 51978.0 | 1992-04-23 | 1988-12-31 | 50.0 | 0.0 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
88CW0074, 15CW3052, 08CW0223, CA1355.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0074 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
15CW3052 | 2 | 1988-12-31 | S |
08CW0223 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
CA1355 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | 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 13 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 298 AF. Its most recent year on record, 1988, came in at 266 AF — 89% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 13 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1974 | 569 | 13th lowest of 13 · 191% of median | 99 | 4.0 |
| 1975 | 383 | 10th lowest of 13 · 128% of median | 89 | 4.0 |
| 1976 | 409 | 11th lowest of 13 · 137% of median | 127 | 3.0 |
| 1977 | 313 | 8th lowest of 13 · 105% of median | 96 | 3.0 |
| 1978 | 264 | 2nd lowest of 13 · 89% of median | 124 | 3.0 |
| 1979 | 294 | 6th lowest of 13 · 99% of median | 96 | 3.0 |
| 1980 | 430 | 12th lowest of 13 · 144% of median | 92 | 3.0 |
| 1981 | 298 | 7th lowest of 13 · 100% of median | 70 | 3.0 |
| 1982 | 381 | 9th lowest of 13 · 128% of median | 82 | 3.0 |
| 1983 | 286 | 4th lowest of 13 · 96% of median | 59 | 3.0 |
| 1984 | 250 | 1st lowest of 13 · 84% of median | 49 | 3.0 |
| 1987 | 292 | 5th lowest of 13 · 98% of median | 60 | 3.0 |
| 1988 | 266 | 3rd lowest of 13 · 89% of median | 61 | 3.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 13 recorded years (-11 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.017).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1104 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 36% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-1988 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.