Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EAST SIDE GRIESER D
Structure dossier · WDID 4400603 · 1 · EAST FORK WILLIAMS FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 04:35 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 1892-05-10 — 203rd most senior of the 3562 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: SCOTT DITCH (1891-07-15). Immediately behind: K DIAMOND DITCH (1892-05-14).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19250.15471 | 1892-05-10 | 1902-09-18 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 68 |
| 52230.35944 | 1948-05-30 | 1993-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
93CW0117, 93CW0115, 09/18/1902.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
93CW0117 | 1 | 1993-12-31 | S |
93CW0115 | 2 | 1902-09-18 | S |
09/18/1902 | 1 | 1902-09-18 | 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 218 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 189 AF — 87% of that, and 7th 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 | 263 | 10th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 56 | 2.5 |
| 2012 | 540 | 15th lowest of 15 · 248% of median | 111 | 5.5 |
| 2013 | 441 | 11th lowest of 15 · 202% of median | 78 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 218 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 44 | 3.3 |
| 2015 | 245 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 31 | 8.2 |
| 2016 | 153 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 78 | 4.4 |
| 2017 | 93 | 4th lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 65 | 1.5 |
| 2018 | 510 | 13th lowest of 15 · 234% of median | 58 | 6.0 |
| 2019 | 51 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 54 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 482 | 12th lowest of 15 · 221% of median | 83 | 3.2 |
| 2021 | 521 | 14th lowest of 15 · 239% of median | 63 | 6.0 |
| 2022 | 86 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 37 | 1.5 |
| 2023 | 37 | 1st lowest of 15 · 17% of median | 21 | 1.5 |
| 2024 | 166 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 62 | 2.1 |
| 2025 | 189 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 54 | 2.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5698 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2025 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.