Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCDONALD DITCH NO 145
Structure dossier · WDID 6800657 · 1 · UNCOMPAHGRE 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 1881-11-01 — 72nd most senior of the 1293 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: SNEVA DITCH (1881-10-15). Immediately behind: CASSIDY DITCH (1882-04-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11628.0 | 1881-11-01 | 1890-06-30 | 0.47 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 2 |
| 11749.0 | 1882-03-02 | 1890-06-30 | 5.35 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 12 |
| 17302.13634 | 1887-04-30 | 1903-01-07 | 20.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 145 |
| 29554.13634 | 1887-04-30 | 1942-05-11 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTKAUG | 47 |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA1959, 97CW0071, CA1183, CA5449.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1959 | 1 | 1942-05-11 | S |
97CW0071 | 8 | 1942-05-11 | O, S |
CA1183 | 1 | 1903-01-07 | S |
CA5449 | 2 | 1890-06-30 | 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 4,000 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,919 AF — 73% of that, and 2nd 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 | 7,493 | 14th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 365 | 23.5 |
| 2012 | 4,181 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 325 | 22.5 |
| 2013 | 4,671 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 315 | 19.4 |
| 2014 | 7,825 | 15th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 365 | 31.5 |
| 2015 | 6,048 | 12th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 345 | 22.3 |
| 2016 | 6,754 | 13th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 366 | 22.4 |
| 2017 | 3,840 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 290 | 14.9 |
| 2018 | 3,073 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 336 | 11.6 |
| 2019 | 4,205 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 365 | 14.5 |
| 2020 | 4,000 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 18.6 |
| 2021 | 3,092 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 303 | 10.5 |
| 2022 | 2,528 | 1st lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 205 | 11.1 |
| 2023 | 2,960 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 247 | 12.2 |
| 2024 | 3,469 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 214 | 11.4 |
| 2025 | 2,919 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 203 | 12.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-238 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 14726 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 91% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.