Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BREWER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1200515 · 1 · ARKANSAS RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:53 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 1873-10-31 — 163rd most senior of the 1967 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: HILL DITCH (1873-08-31). Immediately behind: PORTER-WOODRIFF-TELLS D (1873-10-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8705.0 | 1873-10-31 | 1894-02-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 128 |
| 26675.12875 | 1885-04-01 | 1923-11-14 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA4479, CA7521, CA4882.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4479 | 1 | 1923-11-14 | S |
CA7521 | 3 | 1894-02-03 | O |
CA4882 | 3 | 1894-02-03 | 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 105 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2007, came in at 124 AF — 118% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1941 | 228 | 15th lowest of 15 · 217% of median | 122 | 1.5 |
| 1942 | 89 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 24 | 5.0 |
| 1943 | 129 | 10th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 76 | 1.5 |
| 1944 | 161 | 11th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 85 | 1.0 |
| 1945 | 41 | 6th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 33 | 1.0 |
| 1954 | 6 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 6% of median | 4 | 1.0 |
| 1955 | 178 | 12th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 93 | 2.0 |
| 1969 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1970 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1971 | 105 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 73 | 1.0 |
| 1972 | 216 | 14th lowest of 15 · 206% of median | 137 | 1.5 |
| 1973 | 178 | 12th lowest of 15 · 170% of median | 68 | 1.5 |
| 1975 | 36 | 5th lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 92 | 0.5 |
| 1985 | 12 | 4th lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 7 | 1.0 |
| 2007 | 124 | 9th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 36 | 2.2 |
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 | 2414 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 12% of the irrigation seasons in 1916-2007 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.