Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EATON PIPELINE NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 4500582 · 7 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:24 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 1956-12-18 — 371st most senior of the 1378 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: RINEHART NO 2 DITCH (1955-09-17). Immediately behind: EATON PIPELINE NO 2 ALTERNATE POINT NO 1 (1956-12-18).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39068.0 | 1956-12-18 | 1965-07-09 | 4.65 | 5.35 | C | IRRINDDOM | 256 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA4954, 23CW3099, 05CW0281.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4954 | 2 | 1965-07-09 | S |
23CW3099 | 1 | 1965-07-09 | S |
05CW0281 | 4 | 1965-07-09 | 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 71 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 71 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 22 | 4th lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 98 | 1.2 |
| 1988 | 277 | 14th lowest of 15 · 390% of median | 312 | 3.3 |
| 1989 | 349 | 15th lowest of 15 · 492% of median | 210 | 4.0 |
| 1990 | 162 | 12th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 192 | 1.3 |
| 1991 | 87 | 10th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 77 | 1.3 |
| 1992 | 47 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 52 | 1.7 |
| 1993 | 21 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 17 | 2.5 |
| 1994 | 198 | 13th lowest of 15 · 279% of median | 135 | 1.3 |
| 1996 | 62 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 75 | 1.2 |
| 1997 | 4 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 7 | 0.7 |
| 1999 | 18 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 38 | 1.0 |
| 2000 | 76 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 56 | 1.3 |
| 2001 | 88 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 79 | 1.5 |
| 2003 | 58 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 35 | 1.4 |
| 2017 | 71 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 93 | 2.6 |
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 | 1515 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 17% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2017 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.