Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MOODY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800668 · 1 · UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:58 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 1878-05-01 — 25th most senior of the 1293 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: BROWNYARD NO 1 DITCH (1878-05-01). Immediately behind: REED OVERMAN DITCH (1878-05-01).
Decreed rights (11)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10348.0 | 1878-05-01 | 1897-05-15 | 1.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 25 |
| 10360.0 | 1878-05-13 | 1897-05-15 | 0.042 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 25 |
| 10362.0 | 1878-05-15 | 1897-05-15 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 30 |
| 10683.0 | 1879-04-01 | 1897-05-15 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 35 |
| 11414.0 | 1881-04-01 | 1897-05-15 | 2.125 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 46 |
| 12205.0 | 1883-06-01 | 1897-05-15 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 79, 80 |
| 14762.0 | 1890-06-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.625 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 130 |
| 16206.0 | 1894-05-15 | 1897-05-15 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 16223.0 | 1894-06-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 140 |
| 29554.19844 | 1904-05-01 | 1942-05-11 | 0.333 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 46020.44712 | 1972-06-01 | 1976-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
24 decreed actions on record across
11 court cases:
W2701, 92CW0042, CA1857, CA1660, CA1566, CA1370, CA1120, CA0939, 92CW0167, 87CW0115 and 1 more below.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2701 | 1 | 1976-12-31 | S |
92CW0042 | 2 | 1942-05-11 | O, S |
CA1857 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA1660 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA1566 | 3 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA1370 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA1120 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
CA0939 | 7 | 1897-05-15 | O |
92CW0167 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
87CW0115 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
83CW0060 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | 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 2,432 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,177 AF — 90% of that, and 4th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,644 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | — | 174 | 22.7 |
| 2012 | 2,314 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | — | 223 | 14.9 |
| 2013 | 3,339 | 14th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 17 | 319 | 21.0 |
| 2014 | 2,740 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | — | 348 | 19.5 |
| 2015 | 2,009 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | — | 313 | 15.4 |
| 2016 | 2,175 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 89% of median | — | 326 | 15.0 |
| 2017 | 2,927 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | — | 365 | 20.6 |
| 2018 | 3,035 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 62 | 365 | 11.5 |
| 2019 | 1,791 | 1st lowest of 15 · 74% of median | — | 323 | 10.0 |
| 2020 | 2,286 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 30 | 282 | 18.4 |
| 2021 | 2,432 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 13 | 365 | 15.3 |
| 2022 | 3,382 | 15th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 28 | 301 | 37.2 |
| 2023 | 2,667 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | — | 365 | 17.9 |
| 2024 | 2,213 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | — | 318 | 11.7 |
| 2025 | 2,177 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | — | 190 | 23.8 |
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 | 11 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 13641 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 84% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.