Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCNEIL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000574 · 1 · SMITH FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:14 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 1882-04-01 — 35th most senior of the 4661 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: STORTS DITCH (1882-03-02). Immediately behind: HIGHLINE DITCH (1882-04-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11779.0 | 1882-04-01 | 1889-06-17 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 25807.16557 | 1895-05-01 | 1930-02-10 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | G21 |
| 31924.11779 | 1882-04-01 | 1954-03-20 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | J3 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA3503, CA2030, CA0038, 75CW0088.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3503 | 1 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA2030 | 1 | 1930-02-10 | S |
CA0038 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | O |
75CW0088 | 1 | 1889-06-17 | 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 116 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 98 AF — 84% 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 | 153 | 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 210 | 0.8 |
| 2011 | 211 | 15th lowest of 15 · 182% of median | 210 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 65 | 5th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 195 | 0.3 |
| 2013 | 101 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 212 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 116 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 213 | 0.6 |
| 2015 | 147 | 11th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 212 | 0.9 |
| 2016 | 135 | 10th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 193 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 122 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 194 | 0.8 |
| 2018 | 45 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 212 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 149 | 12th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 211 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | 51 | 4th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 198 | 0.2 |
| 2021 | 34 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 195 | 0.2 |
| 2022 | 21 | 1st lowest of 15 · 18% of median | 200 | 0.1 |
| 2023 | 190 | 14th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 191 | 1.0 |
| 2024 | 98 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 193 | 0.4 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9560 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 82% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.