Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCNULTY NO 2 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800878 · 1 · SHIPPEES DRAW · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:50 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 1886-09-20 — 213th most senior of the 4788 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: ELAM WELL NO 1 (1886-08-14). Immediately behind: BANE & THOMAS DITCH (1886-10-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13412.0 | 1886-09-20 | 1889-05-11 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 164 |
| 14032.0 | 1888-06-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 190 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0132 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | 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 527 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2010, came in at 101 AF — 19% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1982 | 563 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 143 | 2.0 |
| 1983 | 635 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 160 | 2.0 |
| 1984 | 674 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 170 | 2.0 |
| 1985 | 492 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 170 | 2.0 |
| 1986 | 726 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 184 | 2.0 |
| 1987 | 627 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 159 | 2.0 |
| 1988 | 74 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 108 | 0.3 |
| 1997 | 581 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 184 | 2.0 |
| 1998 | 527 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 228 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 854 | 15th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 250 | 2.0 |
| 2000 | 368 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 171 | 2.0 |
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2002 | 36 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 61 | 0.3 |
| 2003 | 255 | 5th lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 304 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 101 | 4th lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 73 | 0.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-19 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 3676 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 40% of the irrigation seasons in 1968-2010 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.