Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SMITH GOSS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0600554 · DITCH · BOULDER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (96d5528) — 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: no administrative call record for this basin.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1859-11-15 — 19th most senior of the 1867 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: GROSS RES (1859-10-01). Immediately behind: BOULDER CITY PL (1859-11-15).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 9.2, it is 11th of 78 down the reach. Immediately upstream: NORTH BOULDER FARMERS DITCH. Immediately downstream: NORTH BOULDER FARMERS D 12TH ST RETURN.
Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3606.0 | 1859-11-15 | 1882-06-02 | 29.2166 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W7570, CA1295, 90CW0193.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W7570 | 2 | 1882-06-02 | O |
CA1295 | 1 | 1882-06-02 | O |
90CW0193 | 2 | 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 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 548 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 287 AF — 52% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 1,206 | 15th lowest of 15 · 220% of median | 194 | 4.0 |
| 2009 | 580 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 201 | 2.4 |
| 2010 | 450 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 196 | 1.9 |
| 2011 | 492 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 203 | 1.7 |
| 2012 | 548 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 219 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 532 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 199 | 1.8 |
| 2014 | 583 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 187 | 2.3 |
| 2015 | 646 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 210 | 2.3 |
| 2016 | 638 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 205 | 2.3 |
| 2017 | 698 | 13th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 204 | 2.4 |
| 2018 | 857 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 212 | 2.6 |
| 2019 | 382 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 154 | 2.0 |
| 2023 | 198 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 137 | 1.3 |
| 2024 | 440 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 208 | 2.0 |
| 2025 | 287 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 156 | 1.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, NORTH BOULDER FARMERS DITCH RETURN TO BOULDER CREEK: no clear flow trend.
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | current | 9237 measured days, newest 285 day(s) before the data's end (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| record continuity | patchy | 57% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.