Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLOUGH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000964 · 1 · MINNESOTA 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 1883-05-05 — 46th most senior of the 4661 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: BEAVER DAM DITCH (1883-05-05). Immediately behind: MINNESOTA CANAL (1883-05-05).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12178.0 | 1883-05-05 | 1889-06-17 | 0.15 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 1 |
| 14413.12218 | 1883-06-14 | 1901-04-12 | 0.133 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 6 |
| 14413.12283 | 1883-08-18 | 1901-04-12 | 0.207 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 7 |
| 14413.12285 | 1883-08-20 | 1901-04-12 | 0.11 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 8 |
| 14413.12488 | 1884-03-10 | 1901-04-12 | 0.333 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 11 |
| 21263.19601 | 1903-09-01 | 1914-06-23 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | A74 |
Legal record & documents
24 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA3850, CA0617, 86CW0038, CA0886, CA0472.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3850 | 6 | 1914-06-23 | O, S |
CA0617 | 1 | 1914-06-23 | S |
86CW0038 | 12 | 1914-06-23 | O, S |
CA0886 | 3 | 1901-04-12 | O, S |
CA0472 | 2 | 1901-04-12 | 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 292 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 308 AF — 106% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 292 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 149 | 1.8 |
| 2011 | 364 | 14th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 157 | 2.3 |
| 2012 | 247 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 115 | 1.6 |
| 2013 | 212 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 140 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 335 | 10th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 188 | 2.2 |
| 2015 | 336 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 175 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 444 | 15th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 205 | 3.2 |
| 2017 | 287 | 6th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 195 | 2.3 |
| 2018 | 231 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 169 | 3.1 |
| 2019 | 350 | 12th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 173 | 1.8 |
| 2020 | 199 | 1st lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 184 | 2.7 |
| 2021 | 202 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 176 | 2.0 |
| 2022 | 355 | 13th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 181 | 2.9 |
| 2023 | 290 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 145 | 2.2 |
| 2024 | 308 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 160 | 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8038 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 69% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.