Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GOLF SURFACE DIVERSION 1
Structure dossier · WDID 3601093 · 1 · SNAKE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:08 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 1889-05-21 — 88th most senior of the 1247 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: BRADDOCK DITCH (1889-05-06). Immediately behind: BLACK CREEK DITCH (1889-06-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14386.0 | 1889-05-21 | 1910-03-02 | 0.95 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 57 |
| 14740.0 | 1890-05-10 | 1910-03-02 | 0.31 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 70 |
| 18779.0 | 1901-06-01 | 1910-03-02 | 0.39 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 130 |
| 32075.14397 | 1889-06-01 | 1952-03-10 | 0.32 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 258 |
| 32075.31217 | 1935-06-21 | 1952-03-10 | 2.03 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 341 |
| 52067.0 | 1992-07-21 | 1992-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
96CW0163.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0163 | 6 | 1992-12-31 | O, 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 11 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 134 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 127 AF — 95% of that, and 4th lowest of the 11 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | 105 | 1st lowest of 11 · 78% of median | 140 | 0.9 |
| 2015 | 437 | 11th lowest of 11 · 326% of median | 156 | 4.2 |
| 2016 | 129 | 5th lowest of 11 · 96% of median | 161 | 1.2 |
| 2017 | 113 | 2nd lowest of 11 · 84% of median | 184 | 1.1 |
| 2018 | 165 | 8th lowest of 11 · 123% of median | 183 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 137 | 7th lowest of 11 · 102% of median | 182 | 0.9 |
| 2020 | 166 | 9th lowest of 11 · 124% of median | 184 | 0.9 |
| 2021 | 120 | 3rd lowest of 11 · 90% of median | 184 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 434 | 10th lowest of 11 · 324% of median | 167 | 4.0 |
| 2023 | 134 | 6th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | 176 | 1.0 |
| 2024 | 127 | 4th lowest of 11 · 95% of median | 173 | 1.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 11 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1890 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 84% of the irrigation seasons in 2014-2024 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.