Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

SMITH DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5100889 · 1 · GARDINER CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-28 02:54 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 1884-09-15 — 40th 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: COLE NO 1 DITCH (SOUTH BANK) (1884-06-30). Immediately behind: ROHRACKER NO 2 DITCH (1884-12-20).

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
12677.01884-09-151906-08-11 2.40.0 CIRR 28

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 27 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 16 AF — 59% of that, and 4th 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)
1998 61 12th lowest of 15 · 226% of median 33 1.0
1999 85 15th lowest of 15 · 315% of median 57 1.0
2006 77 14th lowest of 15 · 285% of median 38 1.5
2007 25 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median 26 0.5
2008 70 13th lowest of 15 · 259% of median 65 1.0
2009 43 10th lowest of 15 · 159% of median 57 0.5
2010 22 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median 24 0.5
2013 49 11th lowest of 15 · 182% of median 51 0.5
2016 35 9th lowest of 15 · 130% of median 46 0.5
2017 27 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 34 0.5
2018 8 1st lowest of 15 · 30% of median 61 0.1
2019 8 1st lowest of 15 · 30% of median 25 0.2
2020 22 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median 44 0.5
2021 10 3rd lowest of 15 · 37% of median 23 0.3
2022 16 4th lowest of 15 · 59% of median 31 0.3

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 995 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1984-2022 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.