Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ELBERT CREEK DIVR POINT
Structure dossier · WDID 3000685 · 8 · ELBERT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 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 1877-03-15 — 127th most senior of the 2277 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: ROCKWOOD DITCH (1877-03-15). Immediately behind: GOLF HOST WEST WELL D-1 (1877-03-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9936.0 | 1877-03-15 | 1923-11-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMSTKPWROTH | E-2 |
| 12174.0 | 1883-05-01 | 1923-11-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | E-3 |
| 15461.0 | 1892-04-30 | 1923-11-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 16801.0 | 1895-12-31 | 1923-11-08 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 43829.09649 | 1876-06-01 | 1970-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | |
| 44742.0 | 1972-07-01 | 1972-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMDOM | |
| 44925.44742 | 1972-07-01 | 1973-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMRECDOM |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W1225, 94CW0103.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W1225 | 8 | 1973-12-31 | O, S |
94CW0103 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | 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 103 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2018, came in at 76 AF — 74% of that, and 5th 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 | 194 | 13th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 365 | 0.5 |
| 2002 | 224 | 15th lowest of 15 · 218% of median | 306 | 4.4 |
| 2003 | 148 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 342 | 1.5 |
| 2004 | 217 | 14th lowest of 15 · 211% of median | 366 | 0.7 |
| 2005 | 162 | 12th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 365 | 0.6 |
| 2006 | 129 | 10th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 304 | 0.4 |
| 2010 | 6 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 31 | 0.1 |
| 2011 | 71 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 275 | 0.3 |
| 2012 | 58 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 366 | 0.2 |
| 2013 | 80 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 365 | 0.3 |
| 2014 | 109 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 335 | 0.3 |
| 2015 | 48 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 365 | 0.2 |
| 2016 | 96 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 366 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 103 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 0.5 |
| 2018 | 76 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 304 | 0.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-7 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.023).
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 | 6857 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1993-2018 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.