Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GOEDER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300657 · 1 · WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1902-05-10 — 920th most senior of the 3293 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: CHASE & COLTHARP DITCH (1892-10-07). Immediately behind: BARBOUR NORTH SIDE D (1911-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28350.19122 | 1902-05-10 | 1929-08-19 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 288 |
| 32172.19487 | 1903-05-10 | 1942-05-26 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 405 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA0715, 11CW0037, CA0624, W2121-73, CA0483.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0715 | 1 | 1947-09-08 | S |
11CW0037 | 1 | 1947-09-08 | S |
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
W2121-73 | 1 | 1929-08-19 | S |
CA0483 | 2 | 1929-08-19 | 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 15 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2016, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1978 | 793 | 15th lowest of 15 · 5287% of median | 93 | 5.2 |
| 1979 | 152 | 10th lowest of 15 · 1013% of median | 23 | 5.2 |
| 1980 | 458 | 12th lowest of 15 · 3053% of median | 71 | 4.5 |
| 1981 | 563 | 13th lowest of 15 · 3753% of median | 60 | 5.5 |
| 1982 | 629 | 14th lowest of 15 · 4193% of median | 64 | 5.2 |
| 2003 | 60 | 9th lowest of 15 · 400% of median | 124 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 2 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 18 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 8 | 6th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 92 | 0.1 |
| 2006 | 15 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 151 | 0.1 |
| 2007 | 4 | 4th lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 55 | 0.1 |
| 2008 | 4 | 4th lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 69 | 0.1 |
| 2009 | 351 | 11th lowest of 15 · 2340% of median | 154 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 11 | 7th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 119 | 0.1 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-7 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.004).
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 | 1987 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 18% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2016 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.