Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLOUD DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3800600 · 1 · NETTLE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:02 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 1886-04-15 — 428th most senior of the 4788 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: ELK CREEK NO 2 DITCH (1918-08-10). Immediately behind: ROMINE WELL (1922-12-31).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26628.13254 | 1886-04-15 | 1923-06-30 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 141A |
| 36396.35915 | 1948-05-01 | 1952-10-24 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 578 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4033, CA2328, 06CW0165, 06CW0157.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4033 | 1 | 1952-10-24 | S |
CA2328 | 2 | 1923-06-30 | S |
06CW0165 | 1 | 1923-06-30 | S |
06CW0157 | 1 | 1923-06-30 | S |
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 335 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2022, came in at 505 AF — 151% of that, and 12th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 335 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 200 | 1.1 |
| 2000 | 303 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 210 | 1.7 |
| 2001 | 330 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 209 | 0.8 |
| 2003 | 154 | 1st lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 123 | 6.0 |
| 2004 | 198 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 76 | 1.4 |
| 2005 | 249 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 173 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 292 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 160 | 1.4 |
| 2008 | 602 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 219 | 1.8 |
| 2010 | 392 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 189 | 1.6 |
| 2011 | 347 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 121 | 2.7 |
| 2015 | 555 | 14th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 113 | 2.5 |
| 2019 | 368 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 140 | 1.8 |
| 2020 | 538 | 13th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 139 | 2.6 |
| 2021 | 280 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 56 | 2.7 |
| 2022 | 505 | 12th lowest of 15 · 151% of median | 150 | 2.3 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5928 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 58% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2022 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.