Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EHRHART & BERTSCHEY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1100634 · 1 · BROWNS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:58 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 1868-05-10 — 61st most senior of the 1489 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: SMITH DITCH NO 2(BROWN) (1868-04-30). Immediately behind: JOSLIN WELL NO 13158-F (1868-05-10).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6705.0 | 1868-05-10 | 1890-06-19 | 6.4 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 25 |
| 33797.06705 | 1868-05-10 | 1969-07-09 | 0.94 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A2 |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA5141, 21CW3078, W4086, CA1127, 84CW0135.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5141 | 1 | 1969-07-09 | S |
21CW3078 | 1 | 1969-07-09 | S |
W4086 | 2 | 1890-06-19 | O |
CA1127 | 1 | 1890-06-19 | O |
84CW0135 | 2 | 1890-06-19 | 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 463 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 44 AF — 10% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 306 | 6th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 96 | 2.5 |
| 2008 | 597 | 13th lowest of 15 · 129% of median | 120 | 3.9 |
| 2009 | 1,125 | 15th lowest of 15 · 243% of median | 157 | 3.9 |
| 2010 | 463 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 85 | 4.0 |
| 2011 | 304 | 5th lowest of 15 · 66% of median | 63 | 3.6 |
| 2013 | 336 | 7th lowest of 15 · 73% of median | 84 | 4.0 |
| 2014 | 473 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 102 | 4.0 |
| 2015 | 485 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 67 | 7.3 |
| 2016 | 231 | 4th lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 70 | 3.9 |
| 2017 | 489 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 123 | 5.5 |
| 2018 | 133 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 56 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 500 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 183 | 7.0 |
| 2020 | 61 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 91 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 1,025 | 14th lowest of 15 · 221% of median | 146 | 7.1 |
| 2023 | 44 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 17 | 2.7 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5269 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2023 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.