Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GABIOUD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800980 · 1 · GREEN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:53 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 1892-06-01 — 268th most senior of the 3097 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: EXCELSIOR DITCH (1890-05-25). Immediately behind: BONARD DITCH (1892-06-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19630.15493 | 1892-06-01 | 1904-09-19 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 118A |
| 42892.35184 | 1946-05-01 | 1972-05-30 | 3.73 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 28 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA3926, 24CW3020, 09/19/1904.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3926 | 1 | 1972-05-30 | S |
24CW3020 | 4 | 1972-05-30 | S |
09/19/1904 | 1 | 1904-09-19 | 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 479 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 769 AF — 160% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 643 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 74 | 5.0 |
| 2009 | 623 | 9th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 69 | 5.0 |
| 2010 | 838 | 13th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 128 | 5.0 |
| 2011 | 2,112 | 15th lowest of 15 · 441% of median | 365 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 1,539 | 14th lowest of 15 · 321% of median | 366 | 2.5 |
| 2013 | 657 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 214 | 2.5 |
| 2014 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 61 | 0.2 |
| 2015 | 282 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 304 | 2.5 |
| 2019 | 122 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 93 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 302 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 305 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 319 | 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 122 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 479 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 227 | 2.4 |
| 2023 | 303 | 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 222 | 5.5 |
| 2024 | 381 | 7th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 244 | 3.1 |
| 2025 | 769 | 12th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 304 | 3.0 |
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 (8/10 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 | 9831 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1940-2025 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.