Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EUGENIO GALLEGOS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7800543 · 1 · PIEDRA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:07 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1934-04-01 — 130th most senior of the 366 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: LOWER DAVIS DITCH (1931-12-31). Immediately behind: PIEDRA FALLS DITCH (1934-07-18).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30771.0 | 1934-04-01 | 1962-04-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #300 |
| 41016.40176 | 1959-12-31 | 1968-12-19 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 68-168 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0308-D, CA0308.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | 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 556 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 10 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 30 | 0.3 |
| 2012 | 483 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 131 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 432 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 116 | 3.8 |
| 2014 | 511 | 7th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 118 | 3.5 |
| 2015 | 390 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 142 | 3.2 |
| 2016 | 393 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 124 | 3.2 |
| 2017 | 556 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 162 | 2.5 |
| 2018 | 1,828 | 13th lowest of 15 · 329% of median | 177 | 9.5 |
| 2019 | 1,483 | 12th lowest of 15 · 267% of median | 200 | 7.8 |
| 2020 | 1,915 | 15th lowest of 15 · 344% of median | 188 | 8.0 |
| 2021 | 1,891 | 14th lowest of 15 · 340% of median | 188 | 9.0 |
| 2022 | 1,416 | 11th lowest of 15 · 255% of median | 174 | 6.4 |
| 2023 | 1,028 | 9th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 157 | 5.6 |
| 2024 | 1,281 | 10th lowest of 15 · 230% of median | 186 | 6.8 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 4 | 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 (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 | 6001 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 47% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.