Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GOSHORN DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 6100506 · 1 · WEST PARADOX CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:52 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 1878-06-30 — 1st 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 behind: COMPANY RANCH WELL (1878-06-30).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10408.0 | 1878-06-30 | 1892-02-01 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 11778.0 | 1882-03-31 | 1892-02-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 4 |
| 12331.0 | 1883-10-05 | 1892-02-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 7 |
| 12425.0 | 1884-01-07 | 1892-02-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 9 |
| 12753.0 | 1884-11-30 | 1892-02-01 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 12 |
| 13422.0 | 1886-09-30 | 1892-02-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 15 |
| 13635.0 | 1887-05-01 | 1892-02-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 16 |
| 14336.0 | 1889-04-01 | 1892-02-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18 |
| 23800.0 | 1915-03-01 | 1926-01-19 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 36 |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA3261, CA0473, 84CW0093, 81CW0077.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3261 | 1 | 1926-01-19 | S |
CA0473 | 4 | 1892-02-01 | O |
84CW0093 | 2 | 1892-02-01 | O |
81CW0077 | 6 | 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 1,175 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 768 AF — 65% 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 | 1,805 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 205 | 6.8 |
| 2012 | 971 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 200 | 7.1 |
| 2013 | 907 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 209 | 5.5 |
| 2014 | 1,175 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 211 | 3.7 |
| 2015 | 1,443 | 9th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 202 | 4.9 |
| 2016 | 1,802 | 11th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 197 | 8.1 |
| 2017 | 2,004 | 14th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 215 | 7.5 |
| 2018 | 875 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 196 | 5.6 |
| 2019 | 2,277 | 15th lowest of 15 · 194% of median | 181 | 9.5 |
| 2020 | 973 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 272 | 5.5 |
| 2021 | 830 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 319 | 66.3 |
| 2022 | 942 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 214 | 3.8 |
| 2023 | 1,948 | 13th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 202 | 10.1 |
| 2024 | 1,494 | 10th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 214 | 7.0 |
| 2025 | 768 | 1st lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 212 | 3.6 |
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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 14268 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 88% 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.