Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SLIDING DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500764 · 1 · MIDDLE MAMM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:06 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 1886-04-23 — 49th 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: CANARY BIRD DITCH (1886-04-01). Immediately behind: SPRING CREEK DITCH (1886-05-14).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13262.0 | 1886-04-23 | 1888-05-05 | 1.17 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 50 |
| 13625.0 | 1887-04-21 | 1888-05-05 | 1.17 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 78 |
| 22114.19092 | 1902-04-10 | 1910-07-23 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 125AAA |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
CA1428, 84CW0218, 07/23/1910, CA2056, CA0089, 05/05/1888.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1428 | 2 | 1910-07-23 | S |
84CW0218 | 1 | 1910-07-23 | S |
07/23/1910 | 1 | 1910-07-23 | S |
CA2056 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
CA0089 | 3 | 1888-05-05 | O |
05/05/1888 | 1 | 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 69 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2007, came in at 75 AF — 109% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | 619 | 15th lowest of 15 · 897% of median | 62 | 10.6 |
| 1994 | 59 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 38 | 3.0 |
| 1995 | 495 | 14th lowest of 15 · 717% of median | 84 | 7.0 |
| 1996 | 124 | 11th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 52 | 4.3 |
| 1997 | 69 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 29 | 1.9 |
| 1998 | 211 | 13th lowest of 15 · 306% of median | 49 | 7.3 |
| 1999 | 52 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 44 | 1.4 |
| 2000 | 52 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 32 | 1.5 |
| 2001 | 141 | 12th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 42 | 7.4 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 47 | 4th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 82 | 1.9 |
| 2004 | 28 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 15 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 118 | 10th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 54 | 1.5 |
| 2006 | 42 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 22 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 75 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 33 | 1.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-8 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.033).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 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 | 2504 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 36% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2007 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.