Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KIMBALL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7000556 · 1 · KIMBALL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:20 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 1885-06-01 — 31st most senior of the 519 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: HOAGLUND-FRASIER DITCH (1885-06-01). Immediately behind: MEACHAM DITCH (1885-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12936.0 | 1885-06-01 | 1889-05-11 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 45 |
| 13255.0 | 1886-04-16 | 1889-05-11 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 57978.0 | 2008-09-26 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | A | RECFISAUGWLD | |
| 57978.0 | 2008-09-26 | 2008-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.5 | C | RECFISAUGWLD |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
08CW0196, W0383, W0290, CA0103.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
08CW0196 | 4 | 2008-12-31 | O, S |
W0383 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | O |
W0290 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | O |
CA0103 | 1 | 1889-05-11 | 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 163 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 38 AF — 23% of that, and 4th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 167 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 44 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 163 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 45 | 2.0 |
| 2008 | 768 | 15th lowest of 15 · 471% of median | 97 | 4.1 |
| 2009 | 200 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 45 | 4.6 |
| 2010 | 257 | 12th lowest of 15 · 158% of median | 78 | 1.8 |
| 2011 | 431 | 14th lowest of 15 · 264% of median | 90 | 3.7 |
| 2012 | 321 | 13th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 183 | 1.4 |
| 2013 | 37 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 68 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 46 | 5th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 112 | 0.3 |
| 2015 | 63 | 6th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 106 | 0.5 |
| 2016 | 229 | 11th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 142 | 1.1 |
| 2017 | 91 | 7th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 32 | 1.9 |
| 2018 | 7 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 4% of median | 16 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 38 | 4th lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 44 | 0.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-16 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3559 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 35% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2020 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.