Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ETIENNE ARBANEY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800664 · 1 · SNOWMASS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:34 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1891-06-01 — 309th most senior of the 4788 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: SNOWMASS DIVIDE DITCH AP (1889-06-25). Immediately behind: EDGERLY DITCH (1891-06-01).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19874.15127 | 1891-06-01 | 1904-06-03 | 3.216 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 209AAA |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W0070, CA1104, 99CW0319, 01CW0364.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0070 | 1 | 1904-06-03 | S |
CA1104 | 2 | 1904-06-03 | S |
99CW0319 | 2 | 1904-06-03 | S |
01CW0364 | 3 | 1904-06-03 | 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 123 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 123 AF — 100% of that, and 7th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1979 | 3,035 | 12th lowest of 15 · 2468% of median | — | 153 | 10.0 |
| 1980 | 3,035 | 12th lowest of 15 · 2468% of median | — | 153 | 10.0 |
| 1981 | 2,400 | 11th lowest of 15 · 1951% of median | — | 122 | 10.0 |
| 1982 | 2,380 | 10th lowest of 15 · 1935% of median | — | 121 | 10.0 |
| 1983 | 3,035 | 12th lowest of 15 · 2468% of median | — | 153 | 10.0 |
| 1984 | 3,471 | 15th lowest of 15 · 2822% of median | — | 175 | 10.0 |
| 1993 | 34 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | — | 8 | 3.2 |
| 1994 | 9 | 1st lowest of 15 · 7% of median | — | 5 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 105 | 4th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 105 | 184 | 0.3 |
| 2017 | 97 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 97 | 173 | 0.3 |
| 2018 | 110 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 110 | 193 | 0.3 |
| 2019 | 105 | 4th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 105 | 184 | 0.3 |
| 2020 | 123 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 123 | 214 | 0.3 |
| 2021 | 123 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 123 | 214 | 0.3 |
| 2022 | 123 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 123 | 214 | 0.3 |
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 (7/10 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3034 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2022 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.