Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EYRE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900559 · 1 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:54 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 1884-02-15 — 57th most senior of the 1758 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: C O & C P PIERSON DITCH (1884-02-15). Immediately behind: EYRE DITCH ALT PT NO 1 (1884-02-15).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12464.0 | 1884-02-15 | 1889-05-11 | 3.1 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 19 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W3524, W2253, CA0103, 06CW0020.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3524 | 4 | 1889-05-11 | O |
W2253 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA0103 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | O |
06CW0020 | 3 | 1889-05-11 | 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 228 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2002, came in at 230 AF — 101% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 262 | 15th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 137 | 1.0 |
| 1989 | 242 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 126 | 1.0 |
| 1990 | 228 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 119 | 1.0 |
| 1991 | 244 | 12th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 127 | 1.0 |
| 1992 | 212 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 111 | 1.0 |
| 1993 | 218 | 4th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 114 | 1.0 |
| 1994 | 252 | 14th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 131 | 1.0 |
| 1995 | 184 | 1st lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 97 | 1.0 |
| 1996 | 228 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 120 | 1.0 |
| 1997 | 236 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 122 | 1.0 |
| 1998 | 224 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 116 | 1.0 |
| 1999 | 222 | 5th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 115 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 246 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 129 | 1.0 |
| 2001 | 212 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 113 | 1.0 |
| 2002 | 230 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 120 | 1.0 |
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2129 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 54% of the irrigation seasons in 1984-2002 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.