Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KUMNIG NO 1 DITCH AP NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 3601106 · 1 · OTTER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:24 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1878-07-15 — 27th most senior of the 1247 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: NEW KUMNIG DITCH (1878-07-15). Immediately behind: UTE CREEK NO 1 (1880-06-01).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10423.0 | 1878-07-15 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 4 |
| 11849.0 | 1882-06-10 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 12 |
| 13423.0 | 1886-10-01 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 46 |
| 13666.0 | 1887-06-01 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 48 |
| 14093.0 | 1888-08-01 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 52 |
| 15310.0 | 1891-12-01 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 86 |
| 17683.0 | 1898-05-31 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 112 |
| 18414.0 | 1900-06-01 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 123 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
96CW0376.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0376 | 8 | 1910-03-02 | 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 10 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 192 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 168 AF — 87% of that, and 4th lowest of the 10 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 | 479 | 10th lowest of 10 · 249% of median | 107 | 2.7 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 10 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1st lowest of 10 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2006 | 168 | 4th lowest of 10 · 87% of median | 153 | 0.7 |
| 2007 | 249 | 7th lowest of 10 · 129% of median | 124 | 2.8 |
| 2008 | 217 | 6th lowest of 10 · 113% of median | 157 | 0.9 |
| 2009 | 252 | 8th lowest of 10 · 131% of median | 107 | 1.4 |
| 2010 | 113 | 3rd lowest of 10 · 59% of median | 109 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 288 | 9th lowest of 10 · 150% of median | 112 | 2.5 |
| 2024 | 168 | 4th lowest of 10 · 87% of median | 109 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 980 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% of the irrigation seasons in 2003-2024 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.