Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GOODRICH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0801416 · DITCH · WEST CHERRY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:56 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (0576005) — 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.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1863-12-30).
● Fully called out — call at NEVADA DITCH (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1865-12-30).
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 1874-12-30 — 467th most senior of the 21881 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: 2300921 (1874-11-30). Immediately behind: 2300625 (1874-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9130.0 | 1874-12-30 | 1883-12-10 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
12/10/1883.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
12/10/1883 | 1 | 1883-12-10 | 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 38 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 107 AF — 282% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 17 | 4th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 16 | 0.6 |
| 2010 | 15 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 29 | 0.6 |
| 2011 | 131 | 15th lowest of 15 · 345% of median | 69 | 1.8 |
| 2012 | 33 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 118 | 0.5 |
| 2013 | 35 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 65 | 0.5 |
| 2014 | 95 | 13th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 91 | 2.0 |
| 2015 | 9 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 21 | 0.4 |
| 2017 | 44 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 26 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 36 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 36 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 53 | 12th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 47 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 38 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 46 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 38 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 57 | 1.7 |
| 2022 | 16 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 132 | 0.7 |
| 2023 | 51 | 11th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 304 | 2.2 |
| 2024 | 107 | 14th lowest of 15 · 282% of median | 63 | 3.1 |
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 (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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3795 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.