Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CABE AND SKIFF DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500536 · 1 · GIBSON GULCH · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:37 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 1890-06-01 — 150th most senior of the 1378 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: CHADWICK DITCH (1900-05-16). Immediately behind: HODGSON NO 1 DITCH (1892-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21504.14762 | 1890-06-01 | 1908-11-24 | 0.115 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 109CCA |
| 51134.31166 | 1935-05-01 | 1990-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 51273.0 | 1990-05-19 | 1990-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
90CW0229, CA1312, 90CW0241.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
90CW0229 | 2 | 1990-12-31 | S |
CA1312 | 1 | 1908-11-24 | S |
90CW0241 | 3 | 1908-11-24 | 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 113 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 173 AF — 153% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 79 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 67 | 1.0 |
| 1993 | 56 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 57 | 0.5 |
| 1994 | 21 | 1st lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 44 | 0.2 |
| 1995 | 98 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 73 | 1.0 |
| 1996 | 113 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 89 | 0.6 |
| 1997 | 218 | 13th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 56 | 2.0 |
| 1998 | 204 | 12th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 51 | 2.5 |
| 1999 | 313 | 15th lowest of 15 · 277% of median | 80 | 2.0 |
| 2000 | 278 | 14th lowest of 15 · 246% of median | 71 | 2.0 |
| 2001 | 45 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 64 | 0.5 |
| 2005 | 125 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 79 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 69 | 5th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 77 | 0.5 |
| 2008 | 60 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 48 | 0.8 |
| 2009 | 123 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 85 | 1.0 |
| 2010 | 173 | 11th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 60 | 1.5 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1984 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2010 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.