Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
PORTLAND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6800697 · 1 · CUTLER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:23 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 1876-05-01 — 2nd 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: OLD AGENCY DITCH (1875-08-01). Immediately behind: PORTLAND CAVE DIVERSION (1876-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9618.0 | 1876-05-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.532 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 2 |
| 13666.0 | 1887-06-01 | 1897-05-15 | 0.005 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 112 |
| 31563.0 | 1936-06-01 | 1942-05-11 | 0.022 | 0.0 | C | DOM | 2 |
| 54056.47481 | 1979-12-31 | 1998-12-31 | 0.033 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTKWLD |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
98CW0057, W3217, CA0939, 99CW0107, 20CW0013, 00CW0007.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0057 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
W3217 | 3 | 1942-05-11 | O, S |
CA0939 | 3 | 1897-05-15 | O |
99CW0107 | 2 | 1897-05-15 | O |
20CW0013 | 1 | 1897-05-15 | O |
00CW0007 | 1 | 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 473 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 501 AF — 106% of that, and 9th 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 | 427 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 261 | 2.4 |
| 2012 | 205 | 1st lowest of 15 · 43% of median | 339 | 1.3 |
| 2013 | 610 | 13th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 365 | 3.2 |
| 2014 | 617 | 14th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 333 | 2.7 |
| 2015 | 583 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 365 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 391 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 366 | 1.5 |
| 2017 | 668 | 15th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 347 | 5.9 |
| 2018 | 406 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 298 | 2.5 |
| 2019 | 553 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 278 | 4.2 |
| 2020 | 241 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 348 | 1.5 |
| 2021 | 473 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 365 | 1.7 |
| 2022 | 417 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 334 | 2.3 |
| 2023 | 257 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 318 | 1.3 |
| 2024 | 587 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 288 | 3.5 |
| 2025 | 501 | 9th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 304 | 3.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 13176 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 82% 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.