Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
M O BROWN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900658 · 1 · RITO BLANCO · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:08 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1887-04-15 — 88th most senior of the 853 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: LITTLE BLANCO HIGHLINE EXTENSION DITCH (1887-04-15). Immediately behind: MEES DITCH (1887-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13619.0 | 1887-04-15 | 1902-01-20 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRFISFIRSTK | #25, #7 |
| 13619.0 | 1887-04-15 | 1902-01-20 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRFISFIRSTK | #25 |
| 48424.0 | 1982-07-31 | 1982-12-31 | 0.75 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRFISFIRSTK | |
| 51986.0 | 1992-05-01 | 1992-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRFISSTK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
92CW0026, 86CW0032, 82CW0163, CA0073, 93CW0088, 82CW0079.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
92CW0026 | 1 | 1992-12-31 | S |
86CW0032 | 1 | 1982-12-31 | S |
82CW0163 | 1 | 1982-12-31 | S |
CA0073 | 1 | 1902-01-20 | O |
93CW0088 | 2 | 1902-01-20 | O |
82CW0079 | 1 | 1902-01-20 | 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 427 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 324 AF — 76% of that, and 4th 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 | 574 | 14th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 178 | 2.9 |
| 2012 | 555 | 11th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 175 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 557 | 12th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 160 | 3.4 |
| 2014 | 594 | 15th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 178 | 2.8 |
| 2015 | 538 | 10th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 167 | 2.6 |
| 2016 | 573 | 13th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 180 | 3.1 |
| 2017 | 413 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 155 | 2.6 |
| 2018 | 444 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 189 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 303 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 147 | 2.6 |
| 2020 | 321 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 114 | 2.8 |
| 2021 | 408 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 172 | 2.8 |
| 2022 | 344 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 152 | 2.8 |
| 2023 | 427 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 156 | 3.1 |
| 2024 | 109 | 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median | 100 | 2.2 |
| 2025 | 324 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 180 | 3.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-21 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.002).
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (8/10 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 | 6352 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 49% of the irrigation seasons in 1965-2025 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.