Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KELLEY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200727 · 1 · EAST BRANCH WEST SALT CR · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:58 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 1912-08-12 — 262nd most senior of the 2166 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: CRESCENT DITCH (1911-07-20). Immediately behind: CRUZEN SPRINGS DITCH (1886-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24085.22869 | 1912-08-12 | 1916-04-28 | 2.48 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 179B |
| 53325.45425 | 1974-05-15 | 1996-12-31 | 2.18 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
96CW0082, CA1862.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0082 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
CA1862 | 1 | 1916-04-28 | 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 62 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 213 | 14th lowest of 15 · 344% of median | 109 | 2.0 |
| 1996 | 8 | 4th lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 27 | 0.2 |
| 1997 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 5 | 0.0 |
| 1998 | 228 | 15th lowest of 15 · 368% of median | 194 | 2.5 |
| 1999 | 89 | 13th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 207 | 0.8 |
| 2000 | 68 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 190 | 0.4 |
| 2001 | 62 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 210 | 0.2 |
| 2002 | 14 | 5th lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 110 | 0.1 |
| 2003 | 63 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 207 | 0.2 |
| 2004 | 88 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 275 | 0.3 |
| 2005 | 46 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 191 | 0.2 |
| 2006 | 74 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 171 | 0.3 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | 41 | 6th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 131 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 11 | 0.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2040 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1994-2019 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.