Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GOVE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000554 · 1 · SMITH FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:47 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 1886-04-14 — 136th most senior of the 4661 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: OAK VALLEY DITCH (1886-04-08). Immediately behind: BRONCHO DITCH (1886-04-15).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13253.0 | 1886-04-14 | 1889-06-17 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTKAUG | 1 |
| 19413.16527 | 1895-04-01 | 1903-02-27 | 0.188 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 28 |
| 21263.19814 | 1904-04-01 | 1914-06-23 | 5.175 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A77 |
| 21974.0 | 1910-03-01 | 1914-06-23 | 8.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A115 |
| 31924.12297 | 1883-09-01 | 1954-03-20 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | FISDOMSTK | J13 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
91CW0090, CA0617, CA0340, CA0038, 90CW0134, 75CW0086.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
91CW0090 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA0617 | 2 | 1914-06-23 | S |
CA0340 | 1 | 1903-02-27 | S |
CA0038 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | O |
90CW0134 | 4 | 1889-06-17 | O |
75CW0086 | 1 | 1889-06-17 | 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 498 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 433 AF — 87% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 498 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 188 | 2.8 |
| 2011 | 731 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 15 | 214 | 4.7 |
| 2012 | 414 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 13 | 211 | 3.2 |
| 2013 | 579 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 14 | 213 | 3.9 |
| 2014 | 632 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 16 | 214 | 3.2 |
| 2015 | 461 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 12 | 213 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 449 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 16 | 217 | 1.7 |
| 2017 | 425 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 15 | 212 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 325 | 1st lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 17 | 209 | 1.8 |
| 2019 | 790 | 15th lowest of 15 · 159% of median | 11 | 211 | 3.7 |
| 2020 | 490 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 18 | 257 | 3.6 |
| 2021 | 625 | 10th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 17 | 365 | 2.1 |
| 2022 | 775 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 19 | 345 | 3.6 |
| 2023 | 694 | 12th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 12 | 365 | 5.5 |
| 2024 | 433 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 14 | 282 | 2.0 |
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 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12988 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.