Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KELLER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800714 · 1 · ELK RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:23 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1885-10-01 — 25th most senior of the 3097 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: HARDSCRABBLE DITCH (1885-06-17). Immediately behind: MANDALL DITCH (1885-10-20).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13058.0 | 1885-10-01 | 1892-09-22 | 2.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 17 |
| 18898.16364 | 1894-10-20 | 1902-09-15 | 3.33 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTKALL | 127 |
| 18898.17325 | 1897-06-07 | 1902-09-15 | 2.66 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTK | 141 |
| 19992.16011 | 1893-11-01 | 1904-09-27 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 125A |
| 33782.16954 | 1896-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 15.49 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISDOMSTKALL | 284 |
Legal record & documents
17 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
W0956-76, W0837-75, CA2475, 84CW0071, 09/27/1904, 09/29/1919, 09/15/1902, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0956-76 | 6 | 1946-09-14 | S |
W0837-75 | 4 | 1946-09-14 | S |
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
84CW0071 | 1 | 1904-09-27 | S |
09/27/1904 | 2 | 1904-09-27 | S |
09/29/1919 | 1 | 1902-09-15 | S |
09/15/1902 | 1 | 1902-09-15 | S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | 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 2,007 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,046 AF — 152% of that, and 14th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 62 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 41 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 2,926 | 13th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 141 | 14.0 |
| 2013 | 1,965 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 140 | 8.4 |
| 2014 | 1,716 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 141 | 10.5 |
| 2015 | 3,917 | 15th lowest of 15 · 195% of median | 152 | 16.9 |
| 2016 | 2,007 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 145 | 11.1 |
| 2017 | 1,170 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 109 | 12.9 |
| 2018 | 2,647 | 11th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 178 | 16.9 |
| 2019 | 592 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 70 | 7.6 |
| 2020 | 2,027 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 196 | 13.2 |
| 2021 | 2,818 | 12th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 111 | 18.4 |
| 2022 | 2,414 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 172 | 22.6 |
| 2023 | 1,524 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 117 | 14.9 |
| 2024 | 1,828 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 98 | 20.0 |
| 2025 | 3,046 | 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 131 | 25.7 |
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 (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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15871 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 64% of the irrigation seasons in 1909-2025 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.