Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EBERT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5301041 · 1 · ROCK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:20 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 1912-12-31 — 605th most senior of the 1231 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: RADIUM WELL NO 2 (1910-12-31). Immediately behind: DEBERARD SPRING NO 6 (1914-06-16).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44925.2301 | 1912-12-31 | 1973-12-31 | 0.1 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | |
| 45655.2301 | 1912-12-31 | 1975-12-31 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W2812, W1833.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2812 | 1 | 1975-12-31 | S |
W1833 | 1 | 1973-12-31 | 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 16 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 46 AF — 288% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 19 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 96 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 6 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 29 | 0.1 |
| 2004 | 14 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 73 | 0.1 |
| 2005 | 16 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 84 | 0.1 |
| 2006 | 11 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 55 | 0.1 |
| 2007 | 13 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 68 | 0.1 |
| 2008 | 10 | 4th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 53 | 0.1 |
| 2009 | 32 | 12th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | 54 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 18 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 44 | 0.2 |
| 2011 | 57 | 14th lowest of 15 · 356% of median | 58 | 0.5 |
| 2012 | 16 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 56 | 0.2 |
| 2016 | 5 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 26 | 0.1 |
| 2018 | 1 | 1st lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 38 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 66 | 15th lowest of 15 · 412% of median | 149 | 0.4 |
| 2020 | 46 | 13th lowest of 15 · 288% of median | 92 | 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2206 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1985-2020 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.