Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KICKINGBIRD CANAL
Structure dossier · WDID 1700555 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 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 1896-08-01 — 51st most senior of the 1909 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: GIECK WELL NO 4 (1904-12-31). Immediately behind: HORSE CREEK RESERVOIR (1896-08-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20186.17015 | 1896-08-01 | 1927-02-03 | 1150.0 | 0.0 | C | STO | R6 |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
02/03/1927.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02/03/1927 | 1 | 1927-02-03 | 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 27,350 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 2,936 AF — 11% of that, and 2nd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 27,350 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 61 | 453.4 |
| 1995 | 54,995 | 11th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 115 | 952.1 |
| 1996 | 31,607 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 77 | 622.2 |
| 1997 | 62,432 | 12th lowest of 15 · 228% of median | 105 | 765.5 |
| 1998 | 102,534 | 15th lowest of 15 · 375% of median | 217 | 750.6 |
| 1999 | 83,944 | 13th lowest of 15 · 307% of median | 166 | 678.5 |
| 2000 | 22,171 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 45 | 552.8 |
| 2008 | 6,521 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 23 | 223.0 |
| 2015 | 48,044 | 10th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 98 | 610.0 |
| 2016 | 15,744 | 6th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 48 | 334.0 |
| 2017 | 98,231 | 14th lowest of 15 · 359% of median | 185 | 622.0 |
| 2018 | 9,279 | 5th lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 27 | 435.0 |
| 2019 | 8,770 | 4th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 29 | 234.0 |
| 2023 | 902 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 5 | 187.0 |
| 2024 | 2,936 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 7 | 466.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-1137 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 2184 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 9% of the irrigation seasons in 1915-2024 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.