Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

ELLIS WASTE WATER DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 3400523 · 1 · PERKINS DRAW · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:22 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 1912-06-05 — 363rd most senior of the 495 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: COPPINGER NO 2 RESERVOIR (1912-05-15). Immediately behind: SMOUSE DITCH (1918-04-15).

Decreed rights (1)

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
30667.228011912-06-051963-03-22 0.60.0 CIRRDOM 62-30

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 120 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2007, came in at 152 AF — 127% of that, and 15th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1992 108 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median 91 0.8
1993 109 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median 96 0.7
1994 120 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 107 0.7
1995 141 14th lowest of 15 · 118% of median 111 0.8
1996 126 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median 126 0.7
1997 131 11th lowest of 15 · 109% of median 114 0.7
1998 105 3rd lowest of 15 · 88% of median 92 0.7
1999 112 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median 111 0.7
2000 83 1st lowest of 15 · 69% of median 99 0.6
2001 90 2nd lowest of 15 · 75% of median 99 0.6
2003 140 13th lowest of 15 · 117% of median 137 0.6
2004 137 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median 116 0.6
2005 114 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median 102 0.8
2006 122 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median 126 0.5
2007 152 15th lowest of 15 · 127% of median 129 0.6

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 3242 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity patchy 46% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2007 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.