Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MANDALL DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5800763 · 1 · BEAR RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:53 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 1885-10-20 — 26th 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: KELLER DITCH (1885-10-01). Immediately behind: PRICE DITCH (1886-05-02).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13077.0 | 1885-10-20 | 1892-09-22 | 3.16 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18 |
| 13977.0 | 1888-04-07 | 1892-09-22 | 15.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 43 |
| 33782.24988 | 1918-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 3.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 317C |
| 33782.24988 | 1918-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 4.92 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 317D |
| 33782.24988 | 1918-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 3.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 317G |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2475, 11/17/1937, 09/22/1892, 04/24/1951.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2475 | 3 | 1946-09-14 | S |
11/17/1937 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
09/22/1892 | 3 | 1892-09-22 | O |
04/24/1951 | 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 3,095 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,969 AF — 96% of that, and 5th 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 | 3,555 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 127 | 35.6 |
| 2012 | 3,176 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 240 | 22.1 |
| 2013 | 4,358 | 14th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 365 | 19.9 |
| 2014 | 4,485 | 15th lowest of 15 · 145% of median | 365 | 30.0 |
| 2015 | 2,977 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 166 | 33.0 |
| 2016 | 3,071 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 152 | 30.8 |
| 2017 | 4,082 | 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 223 | 26.1 |
| 2018 | 2,822 | 4th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 148 | 21.2 |
| 2019 | 2,350 | 1st lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 87 | 27.9 |
| 2020 | 2,589 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 94 | 24.0 |
| 2021 | 2,431 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 121 | 18.9 |
| 2022 | 3,210 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 154 | 19.0 |
| 2023 | 3,095 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 123 | 30.8 |
| 2024 | 3,162 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 87 | 30.8 |
| 2025 | 2,969 | 5th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 130 | 19.0 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13951 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 56% of the irrigation seasons in 1909-2025 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.