← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

GARDNER DITCH NO 1

Structure dossier · WDID 1200606 · 1 · TALLAHASSEE CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 00:40 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 1872-06-15130th 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: BARNARD DITCH (1872-05-31). Immediately behind: PAULS DITCH (1872-06-20).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
8202.01872-06-151894-02-03 2.00.0 CIRR 96

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 236 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 232 AF — 98% of that, and 7th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2008 701 12th lowest of 15 · 297% of median 226 2.0
2009 544 10th lowest of 15 · 230% of median 196 2.0
2010 571 11th lowest of 15 · 242% of median 205 2.5
2011 344 9th lowest of 15 · 146% of median 178 2.2
2014 715 13th lowest of 15 · 303% of median 210 2.4
2016 871 14th lowest of 15 · 369% of median 222 2.6
2017 1,139 15th lowest of 15 · 483% of median 229 3.5
2018 97 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median 164 0.3
2019 204 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median 133 2.0
2020 14 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median 44 0.5
2021 143 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median 135 1.7
2022 116 3rd lowest of 15 · 49% of median 173 0.8
2023 236 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 166 2.2
2024 230 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median 174 2.1
2025 232 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median 174 2.8

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 6617 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 30% of the irrigation seasons in 1924-2025 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.