Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
R E CLARK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5700579 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:14 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 1887-06-06 — 14th most senior of the 1003 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: CHENEY DITCH (1886-05-15). Immediately behind: CARY DITCH COMPANY IRRIGATING DITCH (1887-11-07).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13671.0 | 1887-06-06 | 1892-09-22 | 1.77 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 17 |
| 14366.0 | 1889-05-01 | 1892-09-22 | 0.89 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 43 |
| 34139.25719 | 1920-06-01 | 1948-07-12 | 5.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 188 |
| 39925.25719 | 1920-06-01 | 1962-11-15 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | A-5 |
| 41226.27149 | 1924-05-01 | 1972-05-30 | 1.44 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 2 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA4000, CA3081, 07/12/1948, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4000 | 1 | 1972-05-30 | S |
CA3081 | 1 | 1962-11-15 | S |
07/12/1948 | 1 | 1948-07-12 | S |
09/22/1892 | 2 | 1892-09-22 | 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 698 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 920 AF — 132% of that, and 12th 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 | 536 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 29 | 10.0 |
| 2012 | 830 | 10th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | 55 | 15.0 |
| 2013 | 668 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 37 | 10.2 |
| 2014 | 575 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 38 | 11.0 |
| 2015 | 717 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 48 | 10.0 |
| 2016 | 311 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 48 | 3.7 |
| 2017 | 915 | 11th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 75 | 6.5 |
| 2018 | 586 | 6th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 64 | 10.0 |
| 2019 | 1,176 | 14th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 71 | 17.5 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 6 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 1,562 | 15th lowest of 15 · 224% of median | 67 | 12.5 |
| 2022 | 1,006 | 13th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 63 | 15.3 |
| 2023 | 288 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 17 | 13.2 |
| 2024 | 698 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 68 | 5.5 |
| 2025 | 920 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 59 | 10.0 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6470 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1934-2025 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.