Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCPHEE DITCH (NO 2)
Structure dossier · WDID 5200599 · 1 · SHEEPHORN CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:45 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 1890-05-01 — 31st most senior of the 562 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: BAIR PIPELINE (1890-04-01). Immediately behind: GUTZLER NO 2 DITCH (1890-09-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14731.0 | 1890-05-01 | 1890-11-20 | 3.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 28 |
| 29437.28975 | 1929-05-01 | 1946-08-30 | 1.12 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 176 |
| 46386.44712 | 1972-06-01 | 1977-12-31 | 4.14 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W3336, CA1038, 11/20/1890.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W3336 | 1 | 1977-12-31 | S |
CA1038 | 1 | 1946-08-30 | S |
11/20/1890 | 1 | 1890-11-20 | 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 139 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 103 AF — 74% of that, and 3rd 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 | 115 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 59 | 1.0 |
| 2004 | 96 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 50 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 161 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 69 | 1.2 |
| 2006 | 126 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 65 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 151 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 68 | 1.2 |
| 2008 | 181 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 58 | 1.8 |
| 2009 | 133 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 57 | 1.4 |
| 2010 | 139 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 146 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 63 | 1.2 |
| 2012 | 63 | 1st lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 49 | 0.8 |
| 2015 | 232 | 13th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 67 | 2.3 |
| 2016 | 370 | 15th lowest of 15 · 266% of median | 67 | 3.1 |
| 2017 | 124 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 52 | 1.3 |
| 2018 | 245 | 14th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 59 | 2.3 |
| 2019 | 103 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 45 | 1.2 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2692 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2019 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.