Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCDONALD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900628 · 1 · EAST RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:34 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 1912-05-01 — 518th most senior of the 2360 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: GOOSEBERRY DITCH (1911-08-10). Immediately behind: ELZE WEBBER DITCH (1913-05-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22766.0 | 1912-05-01 | 1921-10-25 | 1.125 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 204 |
| 23861.0 | 1915-05-01 | 1921-10-25 | 0.875 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 212 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
CA1635.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1635 | 2 | 1921-10-25 | S |
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 2,768 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,056 AF — 110% of that, and 10th 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 | 2,694 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 116 | 15.6 |
| 2012 | 2,687 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 99 | 16.2 |
| 2013 | 2,768 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 106 | 16.5 |
| 2014 | 2,547 | 4th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 106 | 14.9 |
| 2015 | 1,408 | 1st lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 64 | 13.3 |
| 2016 | 3,647 | 14th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 131 | 16.1 |
| 2017 | 3,171 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 96 | 20.6 |
| 2018 | 2,888 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 94 | 27.3 |
| 2019 | 4,005 | 15th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 130 | 17.9 |
| 2020 | 3,421 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 118 | 18.9 |
| 2021 | 3,456 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 112 | 18.9 |
| 2022 | 2,639 | 5th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 125 | 15.8 |
| 2023 | 2,545 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 99 | 17.9 |
| 2024 | 1,990 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 89 | 14.7 |
| 2025 | 3,056 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 112 | 20.3 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6036 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 56% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.