Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GERVENS NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100667 · 1 · LOST CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:36 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 1904-09-30 — 231st most senior of the 2208 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: JESSMER DITCH (1904-07-31). Immediately behind: GUSTAFSON DITCH (1905-05-07).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20676.19996 | 1904-09-30 | 1911-08-03 | 1.375 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDFIRDOMAUGTMX | 237 |
| 23454.19996 | 1904-09-30 | 1915-03-18 | 1.125 | 0.0 | C | IRRINDFIRDOMAUGTMX | 283 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0259, 96CW3681, CA0183.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0259 | 2 | 1915-03-18 | S |
96CW3681 | 4 | 1915-03-18 | S |
CA0183 | 2 | 1911-08-03 | 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 233 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2012, came in at 39 AF — 17% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 365 | 15th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 137 | 2.5 |
| 1998 | 249 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 79 | 2.5 |
| 1999 | 303 | 14th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 91 | 2.3 |
| 2000 | 210 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 72 | 2.5 |
| 2001 | 284 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 93 | 2.2 |
| 2002 | 287 | 13th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 124 | 1.5 |
| 2004 | 185 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 90 | 1.4 |
| 2005 | 219 | 5th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 97 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 254 | 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 81 | 2.4 |
| 2007 | 233 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 87 | 1.7 |
| 2008 | 228 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 80 | 1.6 |
| 2009 | 212 | 4th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 91 | 1.5 |
| 2010 | 231 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 80 | 2.5 |
| 2011 | 251 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 88 | 1.7 |
| 2012 | 39 | 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 29 | 0.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2487 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2012 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.