Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GROVE CR DITCH CO NO 1 D
Structure dossier · WDID 7200649 · 1 · GROVE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:50 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 1885-09-03 — 42nd 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: BIG SPRING (1885-01-13). Immediately behind: COOK DITCH (1885-12-11).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13030.0 | 1885-09-03 | 1890-02-07 | 2.13 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 30 |
| 14149.0 | 1888-09-26 | 1890-02-07 | 5.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
| 14149.0 | 1888-09-26 | 1890-02-07 | 0.36 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
| 30895.16718 | 1895-10-09 | 1941-07-25 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | DOM | |
| 30895.23515 | 1914-05-20 | 1941-07-25 | 2.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.24246 | 1916-05-20 | 1941-07-25 | 2.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 34419.27528 | 1925-05-15 | 1959-07-21 | 3.41 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA8303, CA5812, CA2635, CA0273, 84CW0218.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA5812 | 3 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA2635 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 4 | 1890-02-07 | O |
84CW0218 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | 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 1,092 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,092 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,178 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 304 | 6.0 |
| 2011 | 1,535 | 14th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 242 | 6.3 |
| 2012 | 1,046 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 290 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 632 | 1st lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 158 | 8.7 |
| 2014 | 1,229 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 184 | 6.7 |
| 2015 | 1,382 | 13th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 210 | 5.7 |
| 2016 | 1,239 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 294 | 6.5 |
| 2017 | 893 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 136 | 8.3 |
| 2018 | 1,064 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 280 | 6.9 |
| 2019 | 1,728 | 15th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 360 | 5.7 |
| 2020 | 1,349 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 328 | 7.1 |
| 2021 | 869 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 285 | 6.5 |
| 2022 | 710 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 134 | 5.0 |
| 2023 | 941 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 139 | 4.8 |
| 2024 | 1,092 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 172 | 6.5 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12045 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.