Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GEORGE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801289 · 1 · CAPITOL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:39 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 1939-05-01 — 865th most senior of the 4788 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: FLOGAUS DITCH & PIPELINE (1937-07-01). Immediately behind: MOLLIE GIBSON 2 SHAFT D (1940-06-01).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37552.32627 | 1939-05-01 | 1958-06-20 | 7.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 667 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA4613.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4613 | 1 | 1958-06-20 | 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 1,207 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 734 AF — 61% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 1,611 | 11th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 161 | 10.0 |
| 2008 | 1,903 | 12th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 195 | 8.0 |
| 2009 | 3,261 | 15th lowest of 15 · 270% of median | 213 | 10.0 |
| 2010 | 2,108 | 13th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 197 | 10.0 |
| 2011 | 1,207 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 170 | 6.5 |
| 2012 | 2,184 | 14th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 198 | 8.4 |
| 2013 | 787 | 6th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 150 | 6.0 |
| 2014 | 1,367 | 9th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 164 | 7.3 |
| 2015 | 402 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 33% of median | 74 | 3.4 |
| 2016 | 1,576 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 122 | 10.0 |
| 2017 | 429 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 142 | 3.4 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 458 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 75 | 5.7 |
| 2022 | 1,055 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 148 | 3.9 |
| 2023 | 734 | 5th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 54 | 8.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-113 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4344 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% of the irrigation seasons in 1986-2023 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.