Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCKEE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200777 · 1 · KIMBALL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:02 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 1885-12-11 — 44th 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: COOK DITCH (1885-12-11). Immediately behind: LLOYD WELL NO 1 (1885-12-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13129.0 | 1885-12-11 | 1890-02-07 | 1.78 | 0.0 | C | IRRCOMFIS | 2 |
| 28269.21385 | 1908-07-20 | 1927-08-26 | 0.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.24211 | 1916-04-15 | 1941-07-25 | 1.024 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 1.246 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 52595.49978 | 1986-11-01 | 1994-12-31 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | |
| 60112.0 | 2014-07-31 | 2014-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.25 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
14CW3093, 94CW0251, W2357, CA5812, 86CW0186, CA2635, CA0273.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
14CW3093 | 1 | 2014-12-31 | S |
94CW0251 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
W2357 | 3 | 1941-07-25 | O, S |
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
86CW0186 | 1 | 1927-08-26 | S |
CA2635 | 3 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | 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 633 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 370 AF — 58% 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 | 435 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 304 | 1.6 |
| 2011 | 657 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 268 | 3.3 |
| 2012 | 685 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 284 | 2.3 |
| 2013 | 609 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 151 | 3.9 |
| 2014 | 512 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 178 | 4.2 |
| 2015 | 969 | 12th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 287 | 3.4 |
| 2016 | 1,086 | 13th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 366 | 4.2 |
| 2017 | 1,567 | 15th lowest of 15 · 248% of median | 365 | 4.0 |
| 2018 | 633 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 343 | 1.5 |
| 2019 | 1,286 | 14th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 354 | 3.0 |
| 2020 | 589 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 366 | 3.3 |
| 2021 | 316 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 365 | 1.2 |
| 2022 | 153 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 118 | 0.7 |
| 2023 | 821 | 11th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 150 | 3.6 |
| 2024 | 370 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 189 | 1.2 |
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 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11956 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.