Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCGINN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0600586 · DITCH · SOUTH BOULDER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:39 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (96d5528) — 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: no administrative call record for this basin.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1860-05-01 — 38th most senior of the 1867 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: JONES DONNELLY DITCH (1860-05-01). Immediately behind: HUNTER/HINE DITCH (1860-05-01).
On SOUTH BOULDER CREEK at river mile 14.8, it is 24th of 58 down the reach. Immediately upstream: SOUTH BOULDER CANON DITCH. Immediately downstream: LEYNER COTTONWOOD DITCH.
Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3774.0 | 1860-05-01 | 1882-06-02 | 2.47 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 5631.0 | 1865-06-01 | 1882-06-02 | 8.422 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1357, 87CW0327, 85CW0137.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1357 | 2 | 1882-06-02 | O |
87CW0327 | 4 | 1882-06-02 | O |
85CW0137 | 4 | 1882-06-02 | 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 864 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 864 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 | 1,209 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 208 | 8.5 |
| 2012 | 849 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 154 | 7.9 |
| 2013 | 1,050 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 127 | 11.4 |
| 2014 | 1,438 | 15th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 167 | 9.7 |
| 2015 | 199 | 1st lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 55 | 2.6 |
| 2016 | 715 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 144 | 6.9 |
| 2017 | 1,103 | 12th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 177 | 9.5 |
| 2018 | 659 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 127 | 6.5 |
| 2019 | 773 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 137 | 9.1 |
| 2020 | 483 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 63 | 6.0 |
| 2021 | 959 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 134 | 8.7 |
| 2022 | 1,258 | 14th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 164 | 9.8 |
| 2023 | 697 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 157 | 4.8 |
| 2024 | 955 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 132 | 12.7 |
| 2025 | 864 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 168 | 12.8 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, DRY CREEK CARRIER: no clear flow trend.
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | current | 12030 measured days, newest 289 day(s) before the data's end (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| record continuity | patchy | 74% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.