Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MOONEY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300828 · 1 · SOUTH FORK WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:46 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 1900-09-15 — 914th most senior of the 3293 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: SAWYER DITCH NO 1 AND 2 (1915-06-15). Immediately behind: DAWSON WELL (1926-12-31).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 28028.1852 | 1900-09-15 | 1927-08-15 | 1.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 282 |
| 32172.1852 | 1900-09-15 | 1942-05-26 | 3.72 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 390 |
| 38518.0 | 1955-06-17 | 1958-11-26 | 4.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 589 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0999, CA0624, 84CW0219, 08/15/1927.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0999 | 1 | 1958-11-26 | S |
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
84CW0219 | 1 | 1927-08-15 | S |
08/15/1927 | 2 | 1927-08-15 | 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 721 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 943 AF — 131% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1,182 | 14th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 110 | 8.0 |
| 2010 | 1,176 | 13th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 108 | 12.0 |
| 2011 | 1,202 | 15th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 142 | 12.9 |
| 2012 | 365 | 4th lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 71 | 5.6 |
| 2013 | 1,151 | 12th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 144 | 9.2 |
| 2014 | 739 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 117 | 5.6 |
| 2016 | 361 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 102 | 5.6 |
| 2017 | 718 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 57 | 6.8 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 528 | 5th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 65 | 8.0 |
| 2021 | 357 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 86 | 3.6 |
| 2022 | 721 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 13.5 |
| 2023 | 554 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 70 | 5.7 |
| 2024 | 753 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 73 | 8.0 |
| 2025 | 943 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 91 | 8.0 |
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 (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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5722 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.