Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GROFF DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700618 · 1 · SPRING CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:11 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 1885-04-30 — 47th most senior of the 2162 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: WARREN DITCH (1885-04-20). Immediately behind: GROFF DITCH COTTONWD ENL (1885-04-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12904.0 | 1885-04-30 | 1889-12-17 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 33 |
| 14497.0 | 1889-09-09 | 1889-12-17 | 6.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 90 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0675, 91CW0034, CA0669, CA0294.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0675 | 1 | 1916-11-13 | S |
91CW0034 | 2 | 1916-11-13 | S |
CA0669 | 1 | 1916-06-06 | S |
CA0294 | 2 | 1889-12-17 | 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 270 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 382 AF — 142% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 235 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 160 | 1.0 |
| 1996 | 270 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 152 | 0.9 |
| 1997 | 65 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 143 | 0.4 |
| 1998 | 194 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 152 | 1.5 |
| 1999 | 226 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 148 | 1.5 |
| 2000 | 117 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 159 | 1.5 |
| 2001 | 345 | 9th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 146 | 1.2 |
| 2002 | 732 | 12th lowest of 15 · 271% of median | 239 | 2.0 |
| 2005 | 663 | 11th lowest of 15 · 246% of median | 201 | 2.9 |
| 2007 | 214 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 61 | 1.9 |
| 2008 | 1,085 | 15th lowest of 15 · 402% of median | 362 | 2.7 |
| 2009 | 812 | 13th lowest of 15 · 301% of median | 365 | 1.4 |
| 2010 | 825 | 14th lowest of 15 · 306% of median | 304 | 1.6 |
| 2023 | 62 | 1st lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 61 | 0.6 |
| 2024 | 382 | 10th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 305 | 1.7 |
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 (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 | 5822 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2024 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.