Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GAVIN WASTE WATER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200630 · 1 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:45 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 1951-12-28 — 650th most senior of the 2166 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: CITIES SERVICE PL&PP ALT (1951-08-02). Immediately behind: BEEF PAS 1 RESERVOIR (1951-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37251.0 | 1951-12-28 | 1959-07-21 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 53325.45077 | 1973-06-01 | 1996-12-31 | 3.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
96CW0205, CA8303.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0205 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | 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 1,097 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 1,090 AF — 99% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 1,227 | 13th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 162 | 7.0 |
| 2002 | 1,361 | 15th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 173 | 7.0 |
| 2003 | 1,132 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 145 | 7.0 |
| 2004 | 1,083 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 128 | 7.0 |
| 2005 | 956 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 142 | 7.0 |
| 2006 | 867 | 1st lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 132 | 7.0 |
| 2007 | 1,097 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 114 | 7.0 |
| 2008 | 1,044 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 119 | 7.0 |
| 2011 | 1,034 | 4th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 137 | 7.0 |
| 2012 | 1,250 | 14th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 150 | 7.0 |
| 2013 | 1,097 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 127 | 7.0 |
| 2014 | 1,194 | 12th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 147 | 7.0 |
| 2015 | 1,021 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 133 | 7.0 |
| 2016 | 1,159 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 159 | 7.0 |
| 2019 | 1,090 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 146 | 7.0 |
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 | 3154 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 56% of the irrigation seasons in 1993-2019 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.