Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BUCKINGHAM MANDALL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800564 · 1 · BEAR RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:45 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 1888-10-02 — 78th most senior of the 3097 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: WHEELER DITCH AS REBUILT (1888-09-24). Immediately behind: MORRISON CREEK DITCH A (1888-10-21).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14155.0 | 1888-10-02 | 1892-09-22 | 13.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 62 |
| 19253.18546 | 1900-10-11 | 1903-09-21 | 1.83 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 156A |
| 33782.24988 | 1918-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 7.1 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 317H |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2475, 84CW0071, 09/21/1903, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2475 | 1 | 1946-09-14 | S |
84CW0071 | 1 | 1903-09-21 | S |
09/21/1903 | 2 | 1903-09-21 | S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | 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 2,052 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,984 AF — 97% of that, and 7th 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 | 2,686 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 108 | 26.3 |
| 2012 | 1,546 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 165 | 13.7 |
| 2013 | 1,819 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 134 | 16.0 |
| 2014 | 2,993 | 15th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 144 | 22.9 |
| 2015 | 2,095 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 115 | 24.0 |
| 2016 | 1,289 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 42 | 31.2 |
| 2017 | 2,347 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 167 | 21.3 |
| 2018 | 2,094 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 140 | 17.2 |
| 2019 | 2,052 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 146 | 16.8 |
| 2020 | 2,323 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 169 | 19.2 |
| 2021 | 1,156 | 1st lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 84 | 15.6 |
| 2022 | 1,762 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 176 | 15.8 |
| 2023 | 1,944 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 98 | 22.7 |
| 2024 | 2,375 | 13th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 129 | 22.6 |
| 2025 | 1,984 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 116 | 16.2 |
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 | 10561 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 53% of the irrigation seasons in 1933-2025 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.