Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLOUGH NO 1 DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3900532 · 1 · COLORADO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:20 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 1891-12-01 — 124th most senior of the 1758 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: JANGLE DITCH (1891-11-12). Immediately behind: SMITH GULCH RES INLET D (1891-12-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15804.1531 | 1891-12-01 | 1893-11-17 | 7.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 150A |
| 27004.1531 | 1891-12-01 | 1926-08-09 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 186 |
| 39686.0 | 1958-08-28 | 1966-11-10 | 6.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 327 |
| 40016.0 | 1959-07-24 | 1966-11-10 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W0618, CA4914, 86CW0169, 80CW0198, W2477, CA5142.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0618 | 1 | 1966-11-10 | S |
CA4914 | 1 | 1966-11-10 | S |
86CW0169 | 1 | 1966-11-10 | S |
80CW0198 | 2 | 1966-11-10 | S |
W2477 | 1 | 1926-08-09 | S |
CA5142 | 1 | 1893-11-17 | 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 2,212 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2008, came in at 1,018 AF — 46% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1993 | 4,262 | 15th lowest of 15 · 193% of median | 246 | 15.1 |
| 1994 | 3,850 | 14th lowest of 15 · 174% of median | 202 | 15.6 |
| 1996 | 3,076 | 12th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 199 | 15.1 |
| 1997 | 2,385 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 158 | 12.5 |
| 1998 | 2,212 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 144 | 11.2 |
| 1999 | 2,261 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 185 | 9.6 |
| 2000 | 3,105 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 312 | 11.4 |
| 2001 | 2,726 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 321 | 10.0 |
| 2002 | 1,634 | 7th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 314 | 5.5 |
| 2003 | 964 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 228 | 8.6 |
| 2004 | 1,351 | 4th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 188 | 9.0 |
| 2005 | 1,510 | 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 131 | 7.3 |
| 2006 | 1,527 | 6th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 143 | 6.0 |
| 2007 | 772 | 1st lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 125 | 5.0 |
| 2008 | 1,018 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 166 | 5.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-194 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5198 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 69% of the irrigation seasons in 1973-2008 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.