Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCCAW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3001150 · 1 · PINE GULCH · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:26 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 1912-06-18 — 417th most senior of the 2277 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: BASEY DITCH (1912-05-10). Immediately behind: HARSHFIELD DITCH (1912-06-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22814.0 | 1912-06-18 | 1923-11-08 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | F-89 |
| 50038.45655 | 1974-12-31 | 1987-12-31 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
87CW0036, 87CW0031, W1157, CA1751, 87CW0082.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
87CW0036 | 1 | 1987-12-31 | S |
87CW0031 | 1 | 1987-12-31 | S |
W1157 | 2 | 1923-11-08 | O |
CA1751 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
87CW0082 | 2 | 1923-11-08 | 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 363 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 640 AF — 176% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 554 | 13th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 148 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 402 | 9th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 142 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | 256 | 1st lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 126 | 1.3 |
| 2014 | 351 | 5th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 132 | 1.6 |
| 2015 | 334 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 119 | 1.8 |
| 2016 | 363 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 130 | 1.8 |
| 2017 | 483 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 143 | 2.2 |
| 2018 | 282 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 113 | 1.8 |
| 2019 | 415 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 128 | 1.8 |
| 2020 | 351 | 5th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 139 | 1.6 |
| 2021 | 359 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 148 | 1.6 |
| 2022 | 533 | 12th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 124 | 3.1 |
| 2023 | 702 | 15th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 164 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 348 | 4th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 149 | 1.5 |
| 2025 | 640 | 14th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 155 | 3.0 |
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 (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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8089 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1928-2025 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.