Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JOHN M KING EAST DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3100560 · 1 · IGNACIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:14 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 1903-11-17 — 332nd 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: SCOVILLE DITCH (1902-01-01). Immediately behind: JOHN M KING WEST DITCH (1903-11-17).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19678.0 | 1903-11-17 | 1934-06-12 | 2.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | ID-1 |
| 24873.0 | 1918-02-06 | 1934-06-12 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | ID-2 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
W0115, CA1248.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0115 | 1 | 1934-06-12 | O |
CA1248 | 3 | 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 299 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2017, came in at 84 AF — 28% of that, and 1st 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 | 469 | 12th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 109 | 3.0 |
| 2004 | 1,098 | 15th lowest of 15 · 367% of median | 136 | 5.2 |
| 2005 | 790 | 14th lowest of 15 · 264% of median | 144 | 5.7 |
| 2006 | 265 | 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 72 | 2.8 |
| 2007 | 372 | 10th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 76 | 3.2 |
| 2008 | 262 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 84 | 2.2 |
| 2009 | 206 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 47 | 4.5 |
| 2010 | 326 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 75 | 3.5 |
| 2011 | 160 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 54 | 3.2 |
| 2012 | 112 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 37 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 240 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 98 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 376 | 11th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 96 | 2.5 |
| 2015 | 299 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 74 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 634 | 13th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 134 | 3.0 |
| 2017 | 84 | 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 55 | 1.5 |
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 | 7471 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% 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.