Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ELLIS & KITCHENS D
Structure dossier · WDID 4400614 · 1 · NORTH FORK ELKHEAD CREEK · 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 (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 1903-05-26 — 246th 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: OLDHAM D NO 2 (1901-06-07). Immediately behind: OLD ELLIS & KITCHENS DIT (1903-05-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19990.19503 | 1903-05-26 | 1904-10-01 | 1.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 75 |
| 45655.42657 | 1966-10-16 | 1975-12-31 | 3.34 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 75 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
81CW0311, 21CW3048, 81CW0309, 10/01/1904.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
81CW0311 | 3 | 1975-12-31 | S |
21CW3048 | 1 | 1975-12-31 | S |
81CW0309 | 1 | 1904-10-01 | S |
10/01/1904 | 2 | 1904-10-01 | 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 173 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 153 AF — 88% 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 | 876 | 15th lowest of 15 · 506% of median | 215 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 317 | 11th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 210 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 371 | 12th lowest of 15 · 214% of median | 197 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 591 | 13th lowest of 15 · 342% of median | 170 | 3.0 |
| 2015 | 68 | 4th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 133 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 188 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 123 | 3.0 |
| 2017 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 87 | 6th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 157 | 0.3 |
| 2019 | 49 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 90 | 0.3 |
| 2020 | 699 | 14th lowest of 15 · 404% of median | 134 | 7.9 |
| 2021 | 86 | 5th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 124 | 0.4 |
| 2022 | 173 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 149 | 3.3 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 200 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 28 | 5.2 |
| 2025 | 153 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 45 | 2.0 |
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 (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 | 7336 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1933-2025 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.