Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLAUSEN AND BYRNE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500549 · 1 · PORCUPINE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:18 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 1883-03-01 — 6th most senior of the 1378 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: EAST DIVIDE CREEK DITCH (1882-08-09). Immediately behind: CAMP BIRD DITCH (1883-03-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12113.0 | 1883-03-01 | 1888-05-05 | 1.17 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 6 |
| 13320.0 | 1886-06-20 | 1888-05-05 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 56 |
| 13619.0 | 1887-04-15 | 1888-05-05 | 2.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0089, 05/05/1888.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0089 | 3 | 1888-05-05 | O |
05/05/1888 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | O |
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 569 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2009, came in at 549 AF — 96% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | 569 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 245 | 1.2 |
| 1995 | 1,016 | 13th lowest of 15 · 179% of median | 167 | 4.4 |
| 1996 | 573 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 123 | 4.4 |
| 1997 | 1,430 | 15th lowest of 15 · 251% of median | 286 | 4.4 |
| 1998 | 1,029 | 14th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 304 | 4.5 |
| 1999 | 518 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 153 | 3.4 |
| 2000 | 605 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 224 | 2.2 |
| 2001 | 553 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 280 | 1.5 |
| 2002 | 585 | 10th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 253 | 2.1 |
| 2003 | 489 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 214 | 2.5 |
| 2004 | 407 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 211 | 1.9 |
| 2005 | 613 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 110 | 6.0 |
| 2006 | 501 | 4th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 73 | 6.0 |
| 2008 | 221 | 1st lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 101 | 2.5 |
| 2009 | 549 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 95 | 5.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-21 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.038).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4730 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 66% of the irrigation seasons in 1976-2009 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.