Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MEES DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900822 · 1 · RITO BLANCO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:38 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1887-04-15 — 89th most senior of the 853 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: M O BROWN DITCH (1887-04-15). Immediately behind: 3R RANCH DIVERSION (1887-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13619.0 | 1887-04-15 | 1902-01-20 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #7 |
| 13619.0 | 1887-04-15 | 1902-01-20 | 0.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #25 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
93CW0088, 82CW0079.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
93CW0088 | 4 | 1902-01-20 | O |
82CW0079 | 2 | 1902-01-20 | 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 109 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2007, came in at 197 AF — 181% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | 54 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 95 | 0.4 |
| 1993 | 169 | 12th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 150 | 1.1 |
| 1995 | 123 | 9th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 149 | 0.7 |
| 1996 | 71 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 128 | 0.6 |
| 1997 | 33 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 65 | 2.3 |
| 1998 | 79 | 6th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 45 | 3.1 |
| 1999 | 1 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 40 | 0.0 |
| 2000 | 154 | 10th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 119 | 3.4 |
| 2001 | 89 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 27 | 4.0 |
| 2002 | 49 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 47 | 2.6 |
| 2003 | 176 | 13th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 95 | 2.2 |
| 2004 | 464 | 15th lowest of 15 · 426% of median | 170 | 2.3 |
| 2005 | 109 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 113 | 1.9 |
| 2006 | 158 | 11th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 130 | 1.2 |
| 2007 | 197 | 14th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 167 | 1.8 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2451 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 47% of the irrigation seasons in 1983-2007 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.