← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

CUTLER DITCH & RESERVOIR

Structure dossier · WDID 1700623 · 1 · HORSE CREEK · 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 1899-06-0261st most senior of the 1909 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: VIADUCT DITCH & RES NO 2 (1899-06-02). Immediately behind: DEADMAN GULCH DITCH NO 4 (1899-06-04).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
20186.18051899-06-021922-08-30 1.00.0 CIRR 29

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 7 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 2 AF — 29% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
2005 6 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median 7 0.5
2006 15 9th lowest of 15 · 214% of median 29 0.8
2007 31 12th lowest of 15 · 443% of median 32 1.8
2008 41 13th lowest of 15 · 586% of median 52 1.0
2009 49 15th lowest of 15 · 700% of median 64 1.1
2010 29 11th lowest of 15 · 414% of median 51 1.8
2011 41 13th lowest of 15 · 586% of median 58 0.4
2012 3 5th lowest of 15 · 43% of median 5 0.4
2013 4 6th lowest of 15 · 57% of median 6 0.4
2015 1 2nd lowest of 15 · 14% of median 2 0.4
2016 0 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median 3 0.2
2017 2 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median 5 0.5
2018 25 10th lowest of 15 · 357% of median 81 0.2
2019 7 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 4 1.2
2020 2 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median 2 0.9

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.

The rubric, component by component
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 1989 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 19% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2020 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.