Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

EWING DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5901339 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:03 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 2007-05-05 — 2253rd 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: CRESCENT LAKE (2006-05-31). Immediately behind: SRT SPRING 1 (2007-05-22).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
57708.574682007-05-052008-12-31 1.00.0 CSTOIRRFISFIRSTK

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 115 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 116 AF — 101% of that, and 9th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2011 51 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median 143 0.5
2012 55 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median 131 0.5
2013 273 15th lowest of 15 · 237% of median 194 2.1
2014 166 12th lowest of 15 · 144% of median 171 1.2
2015 34 1st lowest of 15 · 30% of median 172 0.2
2016 199 14th lowest of 15 · 173% of median 176 0.9
2017 72 5th lowest of 15 · 63% of median 197 0.4
2018 59 4th lowest of 15 · 51% of median 149 2.1
2019 198 13th lowest of 15 · 172% of median 171 0.7
2020 78 7th lowest of 15 · 68% of median 144 0.6
2021 77 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median 196 0.4
2022 115 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 191 0.5
2023 134 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median 144 0.8
2024 147 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median 155 1.5
2025 116 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median 178 0.7

How good is our record of it?

Grade A (9/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.

The rubric, component by component
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 2749 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity continuous 78% of the irrigation seasons in 2009-2025 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.