Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OUELETTE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 0700632 · DITCH · CLEAR CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:09 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (4ab2507) — 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.
Current administration
● In priority — no active call senior to this structure's rights affects its district (23 active call(s) checked).
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: only 2 analog year(s) have both flow and a complete administration record; 4 needed.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1860-05-31 — 37th most senior of the 1815 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: GOLDEN CITY DITCH (1860-05-31). Immediately behind: FISHER DITCH (1860-08-31).
On MAINSTEM at river mile 53.8, it is 84th of 107 down the reach. Immediately upstream: SOUTH SIDE DITCH. Immediately downstream: SAYER LEES DITCH.
Position on the modelled network, not a claim about whose water this is — a stream carries water from many rights at once, and diverted water returns to it.
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3804.0 | 1860-05-31 | 1884-10-04 | 1.129 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA88646, CA54718, CA53213, 83CW0361, 10/04/1884.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA88646 | 2 | 1884-10-04 | O |
CA54718 | 1 | 1884-10-04 | O |
CA53213 | 1 | 1884-10-04 | O |
83CW0361 | 1 | 1884-10-04 | O |
10/04/1884 | 1 | 1884-10-04 | 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 99 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 90 AF — 91% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 147 | 13th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 92 | 1.4 |
| 2009 | 93 | 6th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 67 | 2.3 |
| 2010 | 81 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 31 | 1.9 |
| 2013 | 161 | 14th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 56 | 2.7 |
| 2014 | 170 | 15th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 78 | 2.8 |
| 2015 | 28 | 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 34 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 104 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 110 | 1.7 |
| 2018 | 79 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 55 | 1.4 |
| 2019 | 114 | 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 61 | 2.2 |
| 2020 | 120 | 12th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 81 | 1.4 |
| 2021 | 99 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 59 | 1.6 |
| 2022 | 95 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 136 | 1.4 |
| 2023 | 84 | 4th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 49 | 1.2 |
| 2024 | 118 | 11th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 72 | 1.2 |
| 2025 | 90 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 83 | 1.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
Its reference gage, LEE AND BAUGH DITCH TAIL: no clear flow trend.
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | current | 9446 measured days, newest 300 day(s) before the data's end (DWR publishes ~1 year in arrears) |
| record continuity | patchy | 58% 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.