Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KIRKPATRICK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100535 · 1 · LOS PINOS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:45 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 1884-12-31 — 308th 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: GRAHAM CREEK NO 2 DITCH (1884-12-31). Immediately behind: PATRICK DITCH (1885-04-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12784.0 | 1884-12-31 | 1934-06-12 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | P-18 |
| 19187.0 | 1902-07-14 | 1934-06-12 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | P-31 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1248.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
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 1,438 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 1,127 AF — 78% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 317 | 1st lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 40 | 7.9 |
| 2004 | 2,339 | 15th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 105 | 22.6 |
| 2005 | 1,652 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 126 | 14.2 |
| 2006 | 1,727 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 168 | 12.8 |
| 2007 | 587 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 116 | 5.0 |
| 2008 | 1,676 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 122 | 12.4 |
| 2009 | 1,220 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 114 | 9.1 |
| 2010 | 1,438 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 129 | 11.9 |
| 2011 | 1,839 | 14th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 105 | 16.5 |
| 2012 | 912 | 4th lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 110 | 13.5 |
| 2013 | 1,836 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 136 | 11.3 |
| 2014 | 1,782 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 124 | 13.0 |
| 2015 | 733 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 75 | 7.3 |
| 2016 | 1,195 | 6th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 129 | 12.0 |
| 2017 | 1,127 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 107 | 10.0 |
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 | 5416 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 38% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2017 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.