Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GALLOWAY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6100502 · 1 · WEST PARADOX CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:16 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 1881-04-30 — 4th most senior of the 166 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: TALBERT DITCH (1881-02-14). Immediately behind: STEVENS OR RILEY WATSON (1882-03-31).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11443.0 | 1881-04-30 | 1892-02-01 | 0.67 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 3 |
| 12173.0 | 1883-04-30 | 1892-02-01 | 0.05 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 5 |
| 12204.0 | 1883-05-31 | 1892-02-01 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 6 |
| 12418.0 | 1883-12-31 | 1892-02-01 | 0.13 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 8 |
| 12549.0 | 1884-05-10 | 1892-02-01 | 0.15 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 10 |
| 12570.0 | 1884-05-31 | 1892-02-01 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 11 |
| 22366.21641 | 1909-04-02 | 1926-01-19 | 2.13 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 26 |
| 23800.0 | 1915-03-01 | 1926-01-19 | 7.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 37 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA3261, CA0473, 94CW0085, 84CW0093.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3261 | 6 | 1926-01-19 | O, S |
CA0473 | 2 | 1892-02-01 | O |
94CW0085 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | O |
84CW0093 | 1 | 1892-02-01 | O |
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 1,400 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 828 AF — 59% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,633 | 14th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 208 | 6.0 |
| 2012 | 1,596 | 13th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 196 | 195.0 |
| 2013 | 1,306 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 218 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 1,451 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 225 | 5.0 |
| 2015 | 1,400 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 214 | 6.0 |
| 2016 | 1,518 | 11th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 214 | 5.8 |
| 2017 | 1,226 | 4th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 219 | 5.9 |
| 2018 | 1,144 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 196 | 5.4 |
| 2019 | 2,238 | 15th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 190 | 11.6 |
| 2020 | 1,275 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 268 | 5.6 |
| 2021 | 1,474 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 305 | 13.3 |
| 2022 | 1,298 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 207 | 4.8 |
| 2023 | 1,590 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 206 | 6.0 |
| 2024 | 1,122 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 198 | 7.3 |
| 2025 | 828 | 1st lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 186 | 5.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13506 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 83% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.