Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LONG GULCH DITCH NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 7000561 · 1 · CLEAR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:21 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 1897-11-20 — 69th most senior of the 519 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: FRANKLIN D AND LATERAL (1891-04-01). Immediately behind: LONG GULCH DITCH NO 2 (1899-11-11).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24089.17491 | 1897-11-20 | 1915-12-20 | 0.82 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 152CC |
| 27132.27059 | 1924-02-01 | 1937-01-11 | 1.42 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181II |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA3102, CA1822.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3102 | 1 | 1937-01-11 | S |
CA1822 | 1 | 1915-12-20 | 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 187 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 0 AF — 0% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1982 | 256 | 10th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 93 | 3.0 |
| 1983 | 187 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 34 | 4.8 |
| 1984 | 286 | 13th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 27 | 10.6 |
| 1985 | 98 | 7th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 23 | 4.5 |
| 1986 | 434 | 15th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 60 | 6.0 |
| 1987 | 270 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 61 | 3.4 |
| 1989 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1993 | 278 | 12th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 74 | 2.5 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1995 | 238 | 9th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 53 | 3.1 |
| 1997 | 84 | 5th lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 31 | 1.7 |
| 1998 | 351 | 14th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 153 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 95 | 6th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 54 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 60 | 4th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 16 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1213 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2019 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.