Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GARTNER SPRING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900606 · 1 · RIO BLANCO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:16 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1920-06-01 — 192nd most senior of the 853 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: BISHOP DITCH (1919-12-31). Immediately behind: GARTNER SPRING DITCH AP #1 (1920-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28645.25719 | 1920-06-01 | 1962-04-19 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | #281 |
| 36746.0 | 1950-08-10 | 1962-04-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | #345 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA0308.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308 | 2 | 1962-04-19 | 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 28 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | 48 | 14th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 150 | 0.2 |
| 1994 | 28 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 131 | 0.2 |
| 1995 | 27 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 93 | 0.2 |
| 1996 | 7 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 49 | 0.1 |
| 1997 | 26 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 101 | 0.2 |
| 1998 | 40 | 11th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 144 | 0.2 |
| 1999 | 61 | 15th lowest of 15 · 218% of median | 126 | 0.3 |
| 2000 | 40 | 11th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 139 | 0.2 |
| 2001 | 37 | 10th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 133 | 0.2 |
| 2002 | 5 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 66 | 0.1 |
| 2004 | 8 | 4th lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 63 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 43 | 13th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 115 | 0.3 |
| 2006 | 30 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 127 | 0.2 |
| 2008 | 22 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 36 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 9 | 0.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5140 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2009 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.