Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100519 · 1 · LOS PINOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:12 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 1881-05-01 — 293rd most senior of the 1037 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: MYERS AND ASHER DITCH AP #2 (1881-02-15). Immediately behind: PALMER DITCH (1881-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11444.0 | 1881-05-01 | 1934-06-12 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | P-10 |
| 18536.0 | 1900-10-01 | 1934-06-12 | 75.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | P-26 |
| 33237.0 | 1940-12-31 | 1966-03-07 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 65-22 |
| 37254.0 | 1951-12-31 | 1966-03-07 | 29.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 65-32 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA1248-B, 91CW0026, 91CW0025, CA1248.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1248-B | 1 | 1966-03-07 | S |
91CW0026 | 2 | 1966-03-07 | O, S |
91CW0025 | 1 | 1966-03-07 | S |
CA1248 | 2 | 1934-06-12 | 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 27,248 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 27,147 AF — 100% of that, and 7th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 28,763 | 13th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 281 | 111.8 |
| 2012 | 27,323 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 328 | 107.2 |
| 2013 | 19,643 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | — | 254 | 105.5 |
| 2014 | 30,497 | 14th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | — | 328 | 110.0 |
| 2015 | 27,832 | 12th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 346 | 102.7 |
| 2016 | 27,248 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 290 | 103.5 |
| 2017 | 27,444 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | — | 280 | 117.0 |
| 2018 | 16,163 | 1st lowest of 15 · 59% of median | — | 286 | 88.1 |
| 2019 | 33,684 | 15th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | — | 332 | 125.0 |
| 2020 | 26,651 | 5th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | — | 275 | 115.0 |
| 2021 | 22,491 | 4th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 365 | 101.0 |
| 2022 | 21,824 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | — | 365 | 82.0 |
| 2023 | 27,704 | 11th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 365 | 106.0 |
| 2024 | 27,112 | 6th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 366 | 117.0 |
| 2025 | 27,147 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 304 | 104.1 |
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 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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15387 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 95% 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.