Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLOHERTY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4300575 · 1 · NORTH FORK WHITE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:05 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1892-10-25 — 948th most senior of the 3293 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: MARVINE DITCH 1 (1889-09-20). Immediately behind: KOPJE DITCH (1895-05-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29143.15639 | 1892-10-25 | 1930-08-18 | 1.45 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 313 |
| 32172.1564 | 1892-10-26 | 1942-05-26 | 2.15 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 362 |
| 38518.0 | 1955-06-17 | 1958-11-26 | 3.65 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 588 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0999, CA0624, CA0512.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0999 | 1 | 1958-11-26 | S |
CA0624 | 1 | 1942-05-26 | S |
CA0512 | 1 | 1930-08-18 | 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 1,107 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 3,929 AF — 355% of that, and 14th 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 | 906 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 69 | 7.2 |
| 2009 | 1,783 | 11th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 128 | 7.2 |
| 2010 | 1,323 | 9th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 95 | 7.2 |
| 2011 | 1,107 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 81 | 7.2 |
| 2012 | 829 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 68 | 7.2 |
| 2013 | 949 | 6th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 71 | 7.2 |
| 2014 | 1,093 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 80 | 7.2 |
| 2016 | 876 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 25 | 18.4 |
| 2017 | 416 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 24 | 9.5 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 2,608 | 13th lowest of 15 · 236% of median | 106 | 16.8 |
| 2021 | 2,532 | 12th lowest of 15 · 229% of median | 91 | 21.3 |
| 2022 | 1,453 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 47 | 30.3 |
| 2023 | 4,245 | 15th lowest of 15 · 384% of median | 70 | 37.0 |
| 2025 | 3,929 | 14th lowest of 15 · 355% of median | 95 | 22.8 |
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 (7/10 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4842 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 37% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.