Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
KIGGINS GOYN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200729 · 1 · BIG CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:10 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 1894-11-01 — 171st 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: MESA CREEK RES NO 4 (1892-09-28). Immediately behind: R M G DITCH (1894-11-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22729.16376 | 1894-11-01 | 1912-07-22 | 0.24 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 22995.14397 | 1889-06-01 | 1916-06-01 | 2.16 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13 |
| 22995.16556 | 1895-04-30 | 1916-06-01 | 2.16 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 17 |
| 30895.14416 | 1889-06-20 | 1941-07-25 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | DOM | |
| 30895.24227 | 1916-05-01 | 1941-07-25 | 1.39 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 462 |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 3.13 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 610 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA9529, CA5812, CA2635.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA9529 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA5812 | 3 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA2635 | 2 | 1916-06-01 | 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 730 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 759 AF — 104% of that, and 9th 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 | 836 | 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 104 | 7.5 |
| 2007 | 608 | 7th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 118 | 5.8 |
| 2008 | 1,269 | 14th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 137 | 12.0 |
| 2009 | 1,207 | 13th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 114 | 12.5 |
| 2010 | 767 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 125 | 11.0 |
| 2011 | 1,369 | 15th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 142 | 8.0 |
| 2012 | 45 | 4th lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 8 | 7.0 |
| 2013 | 216 | 5th lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 12 | 12.0 |
| 2014 | 955 | 12th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 139 | 10.0 |
| 2017 | 270 | 6th lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 30 | 9.0 |
| 2018 | 25 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 4 | 6.0 |
| 2019 | 730 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 54 | 10.5 |
| 2020 | 24 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 7 | 2.4 |
| 2022 | 18 | 1st lowest of 15 · 2% of median | 3 | 4.6 |
| 2023 | 759 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 184 | 8.7 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-48 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4732 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2023 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.