Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ESTESS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5901765 · 1 · EAST RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:28 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 1993-01-05 — 1862nd 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: RAINBOW TROUT POND (1992-07-01). Immediately behind: ESTESS POND #1 (1993-01-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53325.52235 | 1993-01-05 | 1996-12-31 | 75.0 | 0.0 | C | STORECFIS |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
96CW0306, 10CW0103, 04CW0022.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0306 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
10CW0103 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
04CW0022 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | 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 11,590 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 11,590 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 19,068 | 14th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 198 | 94.9 |
| 2012 | 7,303 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 216 | 46.0 |
| 2013 | 14,180 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 204 | 45.8 |
| 2014 | 13,363 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 164 | 48.8 |
| 2015 | 8,409 | 6th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 151 | 37.3 |
| 2016 | 30 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 35 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 15,445 | 13th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 190 | 55.0 |
| 2018 | 7,473 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 192 | 55.0 |
| 2019 | 10,959 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 185 | 42.9 |
| 2020 | 3,728 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 173 | 24.2 |
| 2021 | 6,464 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 193 | 30.3 |
| 2022 | 11,904 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 365 | 28.5 |
| 2023 | 21,594 | 15th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 365 | 61.4 |
| 2024 | 12,664 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 366 | 33.8 |
| 2025 | 11,590 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 270 | 29.6 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 5314 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 94% of the irrigation seasons in 1999-2025 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.