Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MORITZ BRANDENBURG NO 3
Structure dossier · WDID 1300791 · 1 · COTTONWOOD CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:35 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 1880-05-20 — 311th most senior of the 1017 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: SPRUCE GROVE DITCH (1880-05-15). Immediately behind: CHETELAT DITCH NO 3 (1880-05-25).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11098.0 | 1880-05-20 | 1896-03-12 | 0.12 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 247 |
| 14020.0 | 1888-05-20 | 1896-03-12 | 0.04 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 448 |
| 14398.0 | 1889-06-02 | 1896-03-12 | 0.44 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 471 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03/12/1896 | 3 | 1896-03-12 | 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 10 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 11 AF — 110% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 2 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 6 | 0.2 |
| 2002 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 11 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 19 | 0.3 |
| 2004 | 16 | 11th lowest of 15 · 160% of median | 38 | 0.5 |
| 2005 | 51 | 15th lowest of 15 · 510% of median | 58 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 40 | 14th lowest of 15 · 400% of median | 62 | 0.3 |
| 2008 | 9 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 20 | 0.2 |
| 2009 | 9 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 24 | 0.2 |
| 2010 | 10 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 16 | 0.3 |
| 2014 | 22 | 13th lowest of 15 · 220% of median | 39 | 0.3 |
| 2016 | 7 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 20 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 19 | 12th lowest of 15 · 190% of median | 22 | 0.5 |
| 2021 | 6 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 27 | 0.1 |
| 2023 | 5 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 20 | 0.5 |
| 2024 | 11 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 47 | 0.1 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 991 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 6% of the irrigation seasons in 1940-2024 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.