Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CAMP BIRD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500538 · 1 · CACHE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:47 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 1883-03-15 — 7th most senior of the 1378 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: CLAUSEN AND BYRNE DITCH (1883-03-01). Immediately behind: BUFFALO DITCH (1883-03-30).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12127.0 | 1883-03-15 | 1888-05-05 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 47, 7 |
| 34825.344 | 1944-03-08 | 1953-03-02 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 199 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
09CW0190, CA4072, CA0905, CA0089.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0190 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
CA4072 | 1 | 1953-03-02 | S |
CA0905 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | O |
CA0089 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | 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 947 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,027 AF — 108% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 947 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 165 | 3.0 |
| 2011 | 1,036 | 15th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 166 | 4.1 |
| 2012 | 921 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 177 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 856 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 156 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 1,002 | 12th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 169 | 5.5 |
| 2015 | 967 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 155 | 3.9 |
| 2016 | 874 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 154 | 5.0 |
| 2017 | 903 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 168 | 3.0 |
| 2018 | 715 | 1st lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 159 | 3.0 |
| 2019 | 1,027 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 163 | 6.3 |
| 2020 | 780 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 157 | 3.0 |
| 2021 | 837 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 159 | 3.0 |
| 2022 | 980 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 165 | 5.4 |
| 2023 | 947 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 157 | 4.8 |
| 2024 | 1,027 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 172 | 5.0 |
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 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9070 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 86% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.