Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
GULCH DITCH (CARTER CR)
Structure dossier · WDID 7200650 · 1 · BUZZARD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:36 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 1898-05-15 — 208th 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: BUZZARD CREEK HIGHLINE (1897-06-01). Immediately behind: LEON LAKE RESERVOIR (1898-10-05).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22995.17667 | 1898-05-15 | 1916-06-01 | 0.18 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.24592 | 1917-05-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.27 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA5812, CA2635.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA2635 | 1 | 1916-06-01 | 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 26 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 43 AF — 165% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 44 | 14th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 40 | 0.8 |
| 1996 | 34 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 42 | 0.7 |
| 1998 | 60 | 15th lowest of 15 · 231% of median | 57 | 0.8 |
| 1999 | 25 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 35 | 0.8 |
| 2001 | 15 | 4th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 26 | 0.3 |
| 2003 | 26 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 25 | 0.8 |
| 2004 | 26 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 27 | 0.5 |
| 2006 | 9 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 19 | 0.2 |
| 2007 | 3 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 7 | 0.2 |
| 2008 | 43 | 12th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 50 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 19 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 16 | 0.8 |
| 2010 | 22 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 16 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 29 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 45 | 0.5 |
| 2018 | 1 | 1st lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 4 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 43 | 12th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 60 | 0.8 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 504 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 5% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2019 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.