Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCCURRY HIGHLINE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200775 · 1 · HAWXHURST CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:52 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 1888-01-11 — 66th 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: HAWXHURST DITCH (1888-01-11). Immediately behind: MORMON MESA DITCH (1888-01-12).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13890.0 | 1888-01-11 | 1890-02-07 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 50 |
| 22995.15462 | 1892-05-01 | 1916-06-01 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 225 |
| 30895.23619 | 1914-09-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.24988 | 1918-06-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 504 |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.28 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 610 |
| 37264.0 | 1952-01-10 | 1959-07-21 | 3.38 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 876 |
| 51499.2934 | 1930-05-01 | 1991-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
91CW0029, W0169, CA8303, CA5812, 91CW0028.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
91CW0029 | 1 | 1991-12-31 | S |
W0169 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA8303 | 2 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
91CW0028 | 4 | 1941-07-25 | O, 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 198 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 99 AF — 50% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 841 | 15th lowest of 15 · 425% of median | 304 | 4.4 |
| 2011 | 444 | 14th lowest of 15 · 224% of median | 192 | 2.7 |
| 2012 | 377 | 13th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 284 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 161 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 119 | 1.1 |
| 2014 | 138 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 36 | 4.1 |
| 2015 | 198 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 134 | 1.6 |
| 2016 | 269 | 10th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 138 | 2.1 |
| 2017 | 79 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 41 | 1.0 |
| 2018 | 274 | 11th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 97 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 146 | 5th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 77 | 1.9 |
| 2020 | 374 | 12th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 129 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 163 | 7th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 98 | 1.6 |
| 2022 | 227 | 9th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 88 | 1.9 |
| 2023 | 31 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 66 | 0.3 |
| 2024 | 99 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 71 | 1.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-21 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7148 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.