Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MESA CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200784 · 1 · MESA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:11 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 1887-09-23 — 58th most senior of the 2166 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: TEMS DITCH (1887-09-14). Immediately behind: WEST SIDE DITCH (1887-09-23).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13780.0 | 1887-09-23 | 1890-02-07 | 16.62 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 43 |
| 30895.12336 | 1883-10-10 | 1941-07-25 | 6.5 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTKAUG | |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.84 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 49704.0 | 1986-01-31 | 1986-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
94CW0069, 89CW0273, 86CW0015, CA5812, 88CW0341, CA2635, CA0273.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0069 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
89CW0273 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
86CW0015 | 3 | 1986-12-31 | O |
CA5812 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
88CW0341 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA2635 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | 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 5,983 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 5,629 AF — 94% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 6,590 | 12th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | — | 365 | 16.6 |
| 2011 | 7,357 | 15th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | — | 365 | 23.6 |
| 2012 | 6,301 | 11th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | — | 366 | 18.3 |
| 2013 | 6,172 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 365 | 16.6 |
| 2014 | 5,881 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | — | 304 | 16.6 |
| 2015 | 5,564 | 5th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | — | 267 | 16.6 |
| 2016 | 5,983 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 305 | 18.6 |
| 2017 | 5,475 | 4th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 86 | 252 | 17.1 |
| 2018 | 4,768 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 84 | 357 | 14.7 |
| 2019 | 6,955 | 13th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 56 | 330 | 20.1 |
| 2020 | 4,987 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 121 | 362 | 15.2 |
| 2021 | 4,349 | 1st lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 134 | 365 | 16.0 |
| 2022 | 6,184 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 182 | 365 | 16.6 |
| 2023 | 7,106 | 14th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 227 | 365 | 17.7 |
| 2024 | 5,629 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 156 | 305 | 16.9 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 16033 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1969-2024 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.