Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
REDDEN ELSINORE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900656 · 1 · TAYLOR RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:51 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 1934-06-01 — 882nd most senior of the 2360 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: HAMOR DITCH (1933-06-01). Immediately behind: CRANOR PIPELINE NO 2 (1947-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39252.30832 | 1934-06-01 | 1961-01-27 | 14.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 550 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA5590, 84CW0237.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5590 | 1 | 1961-01-27 | S |
84CW0237 | 2 | 1961-01-27 | 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 5,100 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 7,015 AF — 138% of that, and 15th 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 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 10 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 3,891 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 197 | 19.7 |
| 2013 | 4,565 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 179 | 20.6 |
| 2014 | 5,097 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 161 | 23.9 |
| 2015 | 4,178 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 191 | 16.0 |
| 2016 | 6,665 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 167 | 25.8 |
| 2017 | 5,143 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 149 | 37.3 |
| 2018 | 5,100 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 173 | 21.6 |
| 2019 | 4,535 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 171 | 20.0 |
| 2020 | 5,230 | 11th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 177 | 20.0 |
| 2021 | 4,451 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 151 | 23.3 |
| 2022 | 5,228 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 151 | 25.0 |
| 2023 | 6,106 | 13th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 163 | 27.4 |
| 2024 | 5,737 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 186 | 23.3 |
| 2025 | 7,015 | 15th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 155 | 26.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+167 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.004).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 6659 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.