Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FRANK GROH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5300578 · 1 · ROCK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:17 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 1903-05-09 — 140th most senior of the 1231 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: KAYSER DITCH (1902-11-22). Immediately behind: FRANK GROH PUMP STATION (1903-05-09).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20314.19486 | 1903-05-09 | 1905-12-05 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISAUGEVPWLD | 161 |
| 51499.40688 | 1961-05-26 | 1991-12-31 | 2.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 55882.50539 | 1988-05-15 | 2003-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISFIRWLD | |
| 55882.54191 | 1998-05-15 | 2003-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | RECFISFIRWLD | |
| 56157.0 | 2003-10-02 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
03CW0331, 91CW0250, CA0442, 91CW0042.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0331 | 5 | 2003-12-31 | S |
91CW0250 | 3 | 1991-12-31 | S |
CA0442 | 1 | 1905-12-05 | S |
91CW0042 | 1 | 1905-12-05 | 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 186 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 362 AF — 195% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1983 | 305 | 10th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 87 | 2.0 |
| 1984 | 477 | 13th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 122 | 2.4 |
| 1985 | 366 | 12th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 107 | 2.5 |
| 1986 | 513 | 15th lowest of 15 · 276% of median | 147 | 2.3 |
| 1987 | 186 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 92 | 1.6 |
| 1988 | 75 | 5th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 69 | 0.8 |
| 1989 | 71 | 4th lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 67 | 0.8 |
| 1996 | 246 | 9th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 125 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 8 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 16 | 0.5 |
| 2000 | 5 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 9 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 28 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 93 | 0.2 |
| 2008 | 146 | 7th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 48 | 1.6 |
| 2014 | 143 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 100 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 489 | 14th lowest of 15 · 263% of median | 96 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 362 | 11th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 144 | 1.3 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2273 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 24% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2019 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.