Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BRYSON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 1500504 · 1 · SAINT CHARLES RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:51 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 1883-10-31 — 96th most senior of the 704 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: NORTH MUDDY DITCH (1881-04-30). Immediately behind: HICKLAND RESERVOIR NO 3 (1885-03-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12357.0 | 1883-10-31 | 1893-06-26 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 151 |
| 14067.0 | 1888-07-06 | 1893-06-26 | 2.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 182 |
| 15706.0 | 1892-12-31 | 1893-06-26 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 201 |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0061, CA2756, 93CW0052.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0061 | 4 | 1893-06-26 | O |
CA2756 | 2 | 1893-06-26 | O |
93CW0052 | 3 | 1893-06-26 | 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 802 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,197 AF — 149% of that, and 13th 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 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 419 | 5th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 48 | 6.9 |
| 2013 | 250 | 4th lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 34 | 8.0 |
| 2014 | 450 | 6th lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 60 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 859 | 11th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 100 | 6.9 |
| 2016 | 802 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 84 | 9.0 |
| 2017 | 1,857 | 15th lowest of 15 · 232% of median | 173 | 8.0 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 17 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 843 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 96 | 5.7 |
| 2020 | 40 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 14 | 4.0 |
| 2021 | 1,389 | 14th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 136 | 8.0 |
| 2022 | 924 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 93 | 7.0 |
| 2023 | 773 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 79 | 6.0 |
| 2024 | 827 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 84 | 6.5 |
| 2025 | 1,197 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 99 | 7.0 |
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 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 | 5452 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 22% of the irrigation seasons in 1911-2025 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.