Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ELK VALLEY DITCH CO. D.
Structure dossier · WDID 5800626 · 1 · ELK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:45 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 1887-10-12 — 57th most senior of the 3097 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: ENTERPRISE DITCH (1887-10-08). Immediately behind: IRA J VAN CAMP DITCH (1887-10-13).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13799.0 | 1887-10-12 | 1892-09-22 | 9.27 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDRECDOMSTK | 38 |
| 33782.19875 | 1904-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 9.97 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDRECDOMSTK | 293-A, 293 |
| 45290.43995 | 1970-06-15 | 1974-12-31 | 0.15 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | |
| 45496.0 | 1974-07-25 | 1974-12-31 | 1.85 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W0707-74, 83CW0132, W0365-72, CA2475, W0533-73, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0707-74 | 2 | 1974-12-31 | S |
83CW0132 | 1 | 1974-12-31 | S |
W0365-72 | 6 | 1946-09-14 | O, S |
CA2475 | 2 | 1946-09-14 | S |
W0533-73 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | 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 1,863 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,917 AF — 103% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,124 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 154 | 7.0 |
| 2012 | 4,664 | 15th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 110 | 38.1 |
| 2013 | 2,219 | 12th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 91 | 23.9 |
| 2014 | 1,450 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 45 | 17.0 |
| 2015 | 1,748 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 85 | 19.9 |
| 2016 | 1,339 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 75 | 28.8 |
| 2017 | 1,940 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 89 | 17.6 |
| 2018 | 2,802 | 14th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 131 | 20.4 |
| 2019 | 1,863 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 121 | 17.9 |
| 2020 | 2,594 | 13th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 128 | 32.9 |
| 2021 | 1,798 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 132 | 19.5 |
| 2022 | 1,576 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 109 | 13.1 |
| 2023 | 1,287 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 101 | 22.4 |
| 2024 | 861 | 1st lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 54 | 14.6 |
| 2025 | 1,917 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 126 | 18.2 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8978 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1918-2025 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.