Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLEVELAND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700559 · 1 · MICHIGAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:23 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 1888-04-30 — 143rd 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: VAN PATTEN DITCH (1888-04-20). Immediately behind: SQUIBOB DITCH (1888-04-30).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14000.0 | 1888-04-30 | 1892-09-19 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 115(106) |
| 14898.0 | 1890-10-15 | 1902-04-23 | 12.05 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 238 |
| 15603.0 | 1892-09-19 | 1908-07-01 | 5.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 252 |
| 18891.0 | 1901-09-21 | 1908-07-01 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 315 |
| 20939.0 | 1907-05-01 | 1908-07-01 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 333 |
| 21366.21303 | 1908-04-29 | 1913-01-06 | 11.36 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 354 |
| 50769.50311 | 1987-09-30 | 1989-12-31 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
89CW0141, CA2891, CA1783, W1435-78, W1037, CA1519, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
89CW0141 | 1 | 1989-12-31 | S |
CA2891 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
CA1783 | 3 | 1908-07-01 | O |
W1435-78 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
W1037 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
CA1519 | 2 | 1902-04-23 | O |
CA0922 | 1 | 1892-09-19 | 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 2,115 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,115 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 2,579 | 9th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 44 | 50.0 |
| 2012 | 1,033 | 1st lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 94 | 23.0 |
| 2013 | 1,498 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 53 | 25.5 |
| 2014 | 1,964 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 54 | 26.7 |
| 2015 | 1,833 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 69 | 21.8 |
| 2016 | 4,799 | 14th lowest of 15 · 227% of median | 81 | 38.3 |
| 2017 | 5,287 | 15th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 85 | 55.9 |
| 2018 | 4,748 | 13th lowest of 15 · 224% of median | 73 | 42.9 |
| 2019 | 3,712 | 12th lowest of 15 · 176% of median | 56 | 43.4 |
| 2020 | 1,756 | 5th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 63 | 30.0 |
| 2021 | 1,668 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 69 | 23.2 |
| 2022 | 1,284 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 167 | 3.9 |
| 2023 | 2,764 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 61 | 24.0 |
| 2024 | 2,911 | 11th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 65 | 24.0 |
| 2025 | 2,115 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 86 | 33.1 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4034 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1953-2025 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.