Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHIPETA CUTLER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800527 · 1 · CUTLER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:48 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 1887-06-01 — 128th most senior of the 1293 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: ROSEBUD DITCH (1887-05-01). Immediately behind: JAMES STEWART DITCH (1888-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13666.0 | 1887-06-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 14001.0 | 1888-05-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 114 |
| 29554.24592 | 1917-05-01 | 1942-05-11 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 75 |
| 53325.40542 | 1960-12-31 | 1996-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
96CW0111, CA1959, CA0939, 99CW0107.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0111 | 1 | 1996-12-31 | S |
CA1959 | 1 | 1942-05-11 | S |
CA0939 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
99CW0107 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | 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 20 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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 | 379 | 14th lowest of 15 · 1895% of median | 85 | 5.1 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 137 | 9th lowest of 15 · 685% of median | 46 | 2.2 |
| 2014 | 200 | 11th lowest of 15 · 1000% of median | 86 | 2.6 |
| 2015 | 274 | 13th lowest of 15 · 1370% of median | 102 | 2.3 |
| 2016 | 227 | 12th lowest of 15 · 1135% of median | 44 | 3.2 |
| 2017 | 394 | 15th lowest of 15 · 1970% of median | 71 | 3.6 |
| 2018 | 1 | 5th lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 23 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 190 | 10th lowest of 15 · 950% of median | 74 | 1.5 |
| 2020 | 18 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 28 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 20 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 68 | 0.2 |
| 2022 | 1 | 5th lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 24 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 11 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 11 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 11 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-17 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.019).
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 | 1589 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 10% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.