Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCKOWN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800893 · 1 · FOURMILE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:30 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 1887-07-23 — 229th 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: THOMAS RESERVOIR (1887-07-05). Immediately behind: LYNCH DITCH (1887-09-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13718.0 | 1887-07-23 | 1890-04-18 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 181A |
| 21322.20234 | 1905-05-26 | 1908-06-15 | 6.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 223 |
| 30941.25336 | 1919-05-15 | 1936-08-25 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 406A |
| 50769.46872 | 1978-05-01 | 1989-12-31 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 56978.43596 | 1969-05-12 | 2006-12-31 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 56978.46126 | 1976-04-15 | 2006-12-31 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
06CW0249, 89CW0190, CA3082, W0817, CA1292, CA0301.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06CW0249 | 2 | 2006-12-31 | S |
89CW0190 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
CA3082 | 1 | 1936-08-25 | S |
W0817 | 1 | 1908-06-15 | S |
CA1292 | 2 | 1908-06-15 | S |
CA0301 | 1 | 1890-04-18 | 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 1,198 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,156 AF — 96% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 1,039 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 52 | 22.2 |
| 2011 | 767 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 94 | 19.8 |
| 2012 | 779 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 51 | 13.3 |
| 2013 | 1,151 | 5th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 43 | 23.0 |
| 2014 | 2,441 | 12th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 88 | 28.0 |
| 2015 | 2,623 | 14th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 123 | 23.9 |
| 2016 | 2,514 | 13th lowest of 15 · 210% of median | 111 | 24.0 |
| 2017 | 1,678 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 74 | 25.0 |
| 2018 | 1,198 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 20.9 |
| 2019 | 2,668 | 15th lowest of 15 · 223% of median | 88 | 26.0 |
| 2020 | 1,157 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 50 | 21.9 |
| 2021 | 431 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 44 | 9.4 |
| 2022 | 1,224 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 68 | 23.0 |
| 2023 | 1,659 | 10th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 52 | 21.9 |
| 2024 | 1,156 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 62 | 23.0 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5108 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2024 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.