Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EATON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3200558 · 1 · LYNCH DRAW · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:19 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 1908-03-10 — 146th most senior of the 638 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: TOTTEN RESERVOIR (1907-04-25). Immediately behind: RETHERFORD DITCH (1908-03-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21253.0 | 1908-03-10 | 1962-08-14 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-27 |
| 29677.0 | 1931-04-03 | 1962-08-14 | 2.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62-62 |
| 41133.40306 | 1960-05-09 | 1970-12-31 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0021, CA1077.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0021 | 1 | 1970-12-31 | S |
CA1077 | 2 | 1962-08-14 | 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 1,193 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 799 AF — 67% of that, and 2nd 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 | 1,193 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 134 | 6.2 |
| 2012 | 1,573 | 15th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 179 | 6.9 |
| 2013 | 692 | 1st lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 105 | 5.9 |
| 2014 | 1,046 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 127 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 1,017 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 162 | 5.2 |
| 2016 | 1,377 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 159 | 7.8 |
| 2017 | 1,484 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 169 | 7.9 |
| 2018 | 1,344 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 139 | 7.0 |
| 2019 | 1,507 | 13th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 174 | 6.3 |
| 2020 | 1,519 | 14th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 154 | 8.0 |
| 2021 | 799 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 119 | 6.0 |
| 2022 | 918 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 132 | 5.4 |
| 2023 | 1,228 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 159 | 6.0 |
| 2024 | 841 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 161 | 3.6 |
| 2025 | 799 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 117 | 5.8 |
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 (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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9878 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 75% 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.