Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLAYTON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700556 · 1 · BUFFALO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:56 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 1890-06-08 — 230th most senior of the 1262 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: STAPLES DITCH NO 2 (1890-06-01). Immediately behind: BRIGGS DITCH (1890-06-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14769.0 | 1890-06-08 | 1902-04-23 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 112 |
| 21366.19577 | 1903-08-08 | 1913-01-06 | 6.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 178 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA2890, 11CW0037, CA1523.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2890 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
11CW0037 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
CA1523 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | 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 334 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 371 AF — 111% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 395 | 11th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 89 | 4.9 |
| 2010 | 656 | 15th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 75 | 5.5 |
| 2011 | 363 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 58 | 5.0 |
| 2012 | 72 | 4th lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 44 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 616 | 14th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 90 | 5.0 |
| 2014 | 491 | 13th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 65 | 5.2 |
| 2015 | 334 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 98 | 5.0 |
| 2016 | 464 | 12th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 76 | 4.8 |
| 2017 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 153 | 6th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 40 | 2.2 |
| 2020 | 135 | 5th lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 20 | 4.0 |
| 2022 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 233 | 7th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 37 | 5.0 |
| 2024 | 371 | 10th lowest of 15 · 111% of median | 55 | 5.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3450 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1954-2024 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.