Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ECHO DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900588 · 1 · RITO BLANCO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:58 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 1881-05-01 — 79th most senior of the 853 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: DW-2006 (1868-03-02). Immediately behind: C H LOUCKS DITCH (1884-06-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11444.0 | 1881-05-01 | 1902-01-20 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #6 |
| 12418.0 | 1883-12-31 | 1902-01-20 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #12 |
| 16315.0 | 1894-09-01 | 1902-01-20 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #85 |
| 16801.0 | 1895-12-31 | 1902-01-20 | 6.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #89 |
| 17288.0 | 1897-05-01 | 1902-01-20 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #101 |
| 20088.0 | 1904-12-31 | 1912-11-13 | 6.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #166 |
| 35002.0 | 1945-10-31 | 1962-04-19 | 10.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | #330 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W1488, 80CW0185, CA0308, W1105, CA0664, CA0073.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1488 | 1 | 1976-12-31 | S |
80CW0185 | 2 | 1976-12-31 | S |
CA0308 | 3 | 1962-04-19 | S |
W1105 | 1 | 1902-01-20 | O |
CA0664 | 4 | 1902-01-20 | O |
CA0073 | 1 | 1902-01-20 | 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 1,877 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,261 AF — 67% of that, and 3rd 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 | 2,204 | 12th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 168 | 23.0 |
| 2012 | 851 | 1st lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 176 | 23.1 |
| 2013 | 1,777 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 133 | 19.9 |
| 2014 | 1,877 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 166 | 20.3 |
| 2015 | 2,212 | 13th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 178 | 21.3 |
| 2016 | 1,101 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 138 | 13.0 |
| 2017 | 1,778 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 162 | 20.8 |
| 2018 | 2,032 | 9th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 197 | 20.8 |
| 2019 | 2,120 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 148 | 27.5 |
| 2020 | 1,622 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 188 | 17.2 |
| 2021 | 2,290 | 14th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 182 | 25.5 |
| 2022 | 1,471 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 170 | 17.7 |
| 2023 | 2,405 | 15th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 172 | 27.0 |
| 2024 | 2,184 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 173 | 23.4 |
| 2025 | 1,261 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 172 | 16.4 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8703 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 66% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.