Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GILBERTSON NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800564 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1887-04-20 — 124th most senior of the 1505 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: KENDALL NO. 3 DITCH - ALTERNATE POINT (1887-04-15). Immediately behind: GILBERTSON NO 2 DITCH (1887-04-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16192.13624 | 1887-04-20 | 1904-04-29 | 2.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 89&376 |
| 38822.13624 | 1887-04-20 | 1961-12-15 | 10.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 376 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA5591, CA1266.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5591 | 1 | 1961-12-15 | S |
CA1266 | 1 | 1904-04-29 | S |
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 333 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 218 AF — 66% of that, and 5th 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 | 514 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 116 | 4.3 |
| 2012 | 189 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 67 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 499 | 13th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 93 | 4.4 |
| 2014 | 975 | 15th lowest of 15 · 293% of median | 63 | 11.5 |
| 2015 | 446 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 95 | 6.0 |
| 2016 | 268 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 26 | 10.7 |
| 2017 | 333 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 52 | 3.9 |
| 2018 | 490 | 12th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 133 | 2.4 |
| 2019 | 132 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 19 | 4.8 |
| 2020 | 368 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 100 | 6.0 |
| 2021 | 57 | 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 24 | 1.9 |
| 2022 | 466 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 92 | 4.8 |
| 2023 | 273 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 64 | 5.3 |
| 2024 | 101 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 27 | 3.4 |
| 2025 | 218 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 129 | 1.4 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-22 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 4172 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.