Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOCKER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900522 · 1 · SLATE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:44 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 1883-06-01 — 87th most senior of the 2360 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: HINKLE HAMILTON DITCH (1883-05-15). Immediately behind: OHIO CREEK NO 1 DITCH (1883-06-15).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12205.0 | 1883-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 41 |
| 18414.0 | 1900-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 138 |
| 20389.0 | 1905-10-28 | 1906-09-14 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 178 |
| 25763.0 | 1920-07-15 | 1921-10-25 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 237 |
| 28463.2651 | 1922-08-01 | 1928-09-01 | 4.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 267 |
| 30667.12205 | 1883-06-01 | 1941-04-29 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 307 |
| 30667.27528 | 1925-05-15 | 1941-04-29 | 18.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 458 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA2021, 83CW0203, CA1826, CA1635, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2021 | 2 | 1941-04-29 | S |
83CW0203 | 4 | 1941-04-29 | O, S |
CA1826 | 1 | 1928-09-01 | S |
CA1635 | 1 | 1921-10-25 | S |
CA1325 | 3 | 1906-09-14 | 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 4,555 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 4,555 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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 | 5,079 | 11th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 119 | 40.1 |
| 2012 | 9,417 | 15th lowest of 15 · 207% of median | 146 | 40.5 |
| 2013 | 5,618 | 13th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 125 | 36.3 |
| 2014 | 7,629 | 14th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 170 | 35.6 |
| 2015 | 3,068 | 1st lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 174 | 16.0 |
| 2016 | 3,342 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 162 | 25.7 |
| 2017 | 4,626 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 134 | 47.8 |
| 2018 | 4,700 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 154 | 33.6 |
| 2019 | 3,311 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 112 | 28.5 |
| 2020 | 4,517 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 141 | 27.2 |
| 2021 | 3,697 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 187 | 30.3 |
| 2022 | 5,374 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 168 | 25.7 |
| 2023 | 3,661 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 161 | 28.8 |
| 2024 | 4,233 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 168 | 33.6 |
| 2025 | 4,555 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 154 | 29.4 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7076 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 65% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.