← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

GEORGE WARD DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 4700630 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 22:14 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 1886-10-01424th most senior of the 1262 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: TENN 2 (1907-03-01). Immediately behind: HUNTER DITCH 1 (1886-10-01).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
21366.134231886-10-011913-01-06 5.00.0 CIRR 334

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 486 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2009 654 11th lowest of 15 · 135% of median 47 9.1
2010 575 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median 48 10.0
2011 1,404 13th lowest of 15 · 289% of median 62 16.0
2013 319 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median 25 7.0
2014 2,089 15th lowest of 15 · 430% of median 53 35.4
2015 404 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median 50 7.1
2016 486 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 82 7.1
2017 1,682 14th lowest of 15 · 346% of median 120 9.1
2018 927 12th lowest of 15 · 191% of median 57 12.0
2019 394 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median 50 4.1
2020 501 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median 41 10.7
2021 107 3rd lowest of 15 · 22% of median 12 5.4
2023 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 1 0.0
2024 161 4th lowest of 15 · 33% of median 24 5.4
2025 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 2 0.0

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 2123 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 14% of the irrigation seasons in 1955-2025 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.