Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MESA DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800651 · 1 · COCHETOPA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 04:33 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — 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 1877-05-31 — 41st most senior of the 1505 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: EVERLY NO 1 DITCH (1877-05-31). Immediately behind: ELSEN VADER DITCH (1877-07-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16192.10013 | 1877-05-31 | 1904-04-29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 32 |
| 16192.12545 | 1884-05-06 | 1904-04-29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 73 |
| 16192.14032 | 1888-06-01 | 1904-04-29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 24601.0 | 1917-05-10 | 1918-09-03 | 32.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 187 |
| 28311.24652 | 1917-06-30 | 1943-04-19 | 32.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 310 |
| 44194.36311 | 1949-06-01 | 1971-12-31 | 16.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 44194.40724 | 1961-07-01 | 1971-12-31 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W0256, W0245, CA2079, CA1602, W3067, W2486.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0256 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | S |
W0245 | 1 | 1971-12-31 | S |
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1602 | 1 | 1918-09-03 | S |
W3067 | 1 | 1904-04-29 | S |
W2486 | 2 | 1904-04-29 | 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 7,665 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 9,172 AF — 120% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 5,398 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 161 | 38.7 |
| 2012 | 4,711 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 126 | 27.9 |
| 2013 | 5,028 | 4th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 123 | 41.0 |
| 2014 | 7,745 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 118 | 66.8 |
| 2015 | 7,560 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 76 | 69.1 |
| 2016 | 7,665 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 72 | 70.2 |
| 2017 | 10,625 | 14th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 135 | 70.8 |
| 2018 | 4,011 | 1st lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 205 | 24.0 |
| 2019 | 11,023 | 15th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 116 | 66.8 |
| 2020 | 7,357 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 163 | 44.8 |
| 2021 | 8,544 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 161 | 60.2 |
| 2022 | 4,889 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 122 | 44.8 |
| 2023 | 8,438 | 11th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 165 | 61.3 |
| 2024 | 8,116 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 95 | 61.3 |
| 2025 | 9,172 | 13th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 151 | 73.7 |
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 (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 | 7347 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 62% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.