Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GARDEN PARK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1200529 · 1 · FOURMILE 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 (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 1875-06-30 — 193rd most senior of the 1967 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: MERMOD DITCH NO 2 (1875-06-01). Immediately behind: TERRY DITCH (1875-06-30).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9312.0 | 1875-06-30 | 1894-02-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 158 |
| 9602.0 | 1876-04-15 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 167 |
| 9982.0 | 1877-04-30 | 1894-02-03 | 1.32 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 185 |
| 10683.0 | 1879-04-01 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 210 |
| 11109.0 | 1880-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 233 |
| 13665.0 | 1887-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 348 |
| 14396.0 | 1889-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 378 |
| 19105.16663 | 1895-08-15 | 1902-08-04 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 409_1 |
Legal record & documents
20 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3204, CA2423, 08/04/1902, CA4457, 02/03/1894.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3204 | 5 | 1904-06-13 | O, S |
CA2423 | 1 | 1904-06-13 | S |
08/04/1902 | 1 | 1902-08-04 | S |
CA4457 | 9 | 1894-02-03 | O |
02/03/1894 | 4 | 1894-02-03 | 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 175 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 331 AF — 189% of that, and 10th 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 | 71 | 4th lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 9 | 5.1 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 530 | 11th lowest of 15 · 303% of median | 113 | 5.0 |
| 2015 | 1,223 | 13th lowest of 15 · 699% of median | 159 | 5.8 |
| 2016 | 1,632 | 15th lowest of 15 · 933% of median | 179 | 5.9 |
| 2017 | 1,599 | 14th lowest of 15 · 914% of median | 193 | 6.2 |
| 2018 | 94 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 21 | 6.0 |
| 2019 | 125 | 6th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 37 | 6.0 |
| 2020 | 147 | 7th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 43 | 5.0 |
| 2021 | 59 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 18 | 6.0 |
| 2022 | 175 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 48 | 6.0 |
| 2023 | 265 | 9th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 38 | 6.0 |
| 2024 | 841 | 12th lowest of 15 · 481% of median | 139 | 5.9 |
| 2025 | 331 | 10th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 46 | 5.7 |
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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15737 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 65% of the irrigation seasons in 1913-2025 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.