Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CARLSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000868 · 1 · GUNNISON RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:17 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 1894-04-01 — 1504th 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: ELK PARK RESERVOIR (1893-09-01). Immediately behind: KEHMEIER RESERVOIR (1894-05-05).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29260.16162 | 1894-04-01 | 1937-05-28 | 1.12 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H16 |
| 29260.16223 | 1894-06-01 | 1937-05-28 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H18 |
| 29260.22841 | 1912-07-15 | 1937-05-28 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | H89 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA2563.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2563 | 3 | 1937-05-28 | 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 674 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2005, came in at 325 AF — 48% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 652 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 170 | 5.0 |
| 1992 | 561 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 132 | 4.0 |
| 1993 | 383 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 92 | 4.5 |
| 1994 | 786 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 142 | 5.0 |
| 1995 | 541 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 151 | 4.5 |
| 1996 | 674 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 154 | 4.5 |
| 1997 | 325 | 1st lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 99 | 4.0 |
| 1998 | 482 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 109 | 5.0 |
| 1999 | 1,544 | 12th lowest of 15 · 229% of median | 196 | 5.0 |
| 2000 | 2,579 | 15th lowest of 15 · 383% of median | 305 | 5.0 |
| 2001 | 2,385 | 14th lowest of 15 · 354% of median | 292 | 6.0 |
| 2002 | 2,116 | 13th lowest of 15 · 314% of median | 289 | 6.0 |
| 2003 | 729 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 95 | 6.0 |
| 2004 | 1,063 | 11th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 137 | 5.0 |
| 2005 | 325 | 1st lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 86 | 3.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5230 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 69% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2005 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.