Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
EMMETT DITCH NO 3
Structure dossier · WDID 3600609 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:24 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 1899-08-31 — 173rd most senior of the 1247 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: STRAIGHT CREEK DITCH AP (1899-04-18). Immediately behind: VIE DITCH (1899-08-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18140.0 | 1899-08-31 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 118 |
| 23900.0 | 1915-06-09 | 1916-07-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 205 |
| 30184.20269 | 1905-06-30 | 1937-10-26 | 3.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 221 |
| 32075.20453 | 1905-12-31 | 1952-03-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 304 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
05CW0267, CA1709.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0267 | 4 | 1952-03-10 | O, S |
CA1709 | 1 | 1937-10-26 | S |
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 335 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 404 AF — 121% of that, and 11th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 541 | 15th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 50 | 8.5 |
| 2011 | 495 | 14th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 48 | 7.1 |
| 2012 | 254 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 72 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 364 | 10th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 49 | 5.4 |
| 2014 | 327 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 45 | 4.9 |
| 2015 | 289 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 45 | 4.3 |
| 2016 | 335 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 53 | 5.3 |
| 2017 | 456 | 13th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 56 | 5.4 |
| 2018 | 129 | 1st lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 116 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 304 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 44 | 4.1 |
| 2020 | 347 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 59 | 4.4 |
| 2021 | 290 | 4th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 54 | 4.6 |
| 2022 | 312 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 58 | 4.0 |
| 2023 | 419 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 57 | 4.5 |
| 2024 | 404 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 64 | 4.8 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3796 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1968-2024 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.