Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EAKLOR DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7700524 · 1 · NAVAJO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:06 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1889-05-27 — 22nd most senior of the 187 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: NAVAJO MILL & IRG DITCH (1889-04-01). Immediately behind: ARCHULETA D-MAX READ HDG (1889-05-27).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14392.0 | 1889-05-27 | 1912-11-13 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTK | Sp#1 |
| 32354.0 | 1938-08-01 | 1962-04-19 | 18.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | #311 |
| 41016.39973 | 1959-06-11 | 1968-12-19 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 68-160 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
15CW0019, 09CW0018, W0090, CA0308-D, 91CW0065, 84CW0108, CA0308, W1047.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
15CW0019 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
09CW0018 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
W0090 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308-D | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
91CW0065 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
84CW0108 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0308 | 1 | 1962-04-19 | S |
W1047 | 1 | 1912-11-13 | 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 1,756 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,948 AF — 111% of that, and 10th 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 | 2,229 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 121 | 18.1 |
| 2012 | 3,307 | 14th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 133 | 17.6 |
| 2013 | 1,366 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 149 | 9.3 |
| 2014 | 680 | 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 132 | 6.4 |
| 2015 | 1,132 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 156 | 7.8 |
| 2016 | 1,755 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 136 | 8.2 |
| 2017 | 1,881 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 138 | 14.9 |
| 2018 | 3,178 | 13th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 171 | 18.1 |
| 2019 | 3,379 | 15th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 155 | 18.1 |
| 2020 | 2,669 | 12th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 144 | 16.0 |
| 2021 | 1,437 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 132 | 13.7 |
| 2022 | 712 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 124 | 4.7 |
| 2023 | 1,756 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 152 | 10.0 |
| 2024 | 1,466 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 163 | 6.5 |
| 2025 | 1,948 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 138 | 11.0 |
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 (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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7975 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 61% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.