Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NEWPORT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700793 · 1 · PINKHAM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:59 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 1883-05-31 — 17th 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: HOME NO 1 & UPLAND D (1883-05-06). Immediately behind: ENDOMILE DITCH (1883-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12204.0 | 1883-05-31 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13(12) |
| 13758.0 | 1887-09-01 | 1892-09-19 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 105(97) |
| 16222.0 | 1894-05-31 | 1901-05-17 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 273(261) |
| 21696.0 | 1909-05-27 | 1913-01-06 | 15.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 359 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
CA3571, 11CW0037, CA2891, 21CW3048, CA1420, CA0922, 85CW0126.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3571 | 2 | 1923-03-06 | S |
11CW0037 | 1 | 1923-03-06 | S |
CA2891 | 2 | 1913-01-06 | S |
21CW3048 | 1 | 1913-01-06 | S |
CA1420 | 1 | 1901-05-17 | O |
CA0922 | 1 | 1892-09-19 | O |
85CW0126 | 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 571 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 48 AF — 8% of that, and 2nd 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 | 571 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 86 | 6.0 |
| 2010 | 163 | 4th lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 79 | 1.5 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 13 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 91 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 54 | 1.3 |
| 2014 | 604 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 60 | 7.5 |
| 2015 | 775 | 12th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 95 | 6.8 |
| 2016 | 245 | 5th lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 55 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | 1,057 | 13th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 109 | 8.7 |
| 2018 | 464 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 75 | 7.9 |
| 2019 | 1,714 | 15th lowest of 15 · 300% of median | 89 | 23.5 |
| 2020 | 249 | 6th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 29 | 6.4 |
| 2021 | 598 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 105 | 9.1 |
| 2022 | 1,147 | 14th lowest of 15 · 201% of median | 114 | 9.6 |
| 2023 | 688 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 93 | 3.8 |
| 2024 | 48 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 11 | 2.4 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3321 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1955-2024 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.