Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MOCKING BIRD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500694 · 1 · CACHE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:51 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 1886-06-02 — 54th 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: BAKER DITCH (1886-06-01). Immediately behind: LEE DITCH (1886-07-07).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13302.0 | 1886-06-02 | 1888-05-05 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 55 |
| 13467.0 | 1886-11-14 | 1888-05-05 | 1.08 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62 |
| 19544.13302 | 1886-06-02 | 1903-11-12 | 0.42 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | DOM7 |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA1057, CA1946, CA0089.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1057 | 1 | 1903-11-12 | S |
CA1946 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | O |
CA0089 | 3 | 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 559 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 706 AF — 126% of that, and 12th 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 | 330 | 5th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 273 | 4.6 |
| 2011 | 1,331 | 15th lowest of 15 · 238% of median | 257 | 17.0 |
| 2012 | 242 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 77 | 2.6 |
| 2013 | 312 | 4th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 149 | 4.6 |
| 2014 | 589 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 277 | 11.8 |
| 2015 | 573 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 295 | 4.6 |
| 2016 | 559 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 276 | 11.0 |
| 2017 | 495 | 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 315 | 4.6 |
| 2018 | 231 | 1st lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 155 | 2.6 |
| 2019 | 1,137 | 13th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 311 | 17.5 |
| 2020 | 285 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 174 | 2.6 |
| 2021 | 333 | 6th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 192 | 4.6 |
| 2022 | 666 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 284 | 12.0 |
| 2023 | 1,177 | 14th lowest of 15 · 211% of median | 308 | 14.6 |
| 2024 | 706 | 12th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 251 | 10.8 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10859 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% 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.