Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
F W SPERRY DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3600819 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:58 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 1882-10-01 — 43rd 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: BENSON DITCH (BRUSH CREEK) (1882-10-01). Immediately behind: ABBETT AND BENNETT DITCH (1883-04-24).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11962.0 | 1882-10-01 | 1910-03-02 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 13 |
| 12205.0 | 1883-06-01 | 1910-03-02 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 19 |
| 32075.15249 | 1891-10-01 | 1952-03-10 | 4.34 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 263 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA1805, 05CW0182, CA1277, 05CW0266.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1805 | 1 | 1952-03-10 | S |
05CW0182 | 2 | 1952-03-10 | O, S |
CA1277 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | O |
05CW0266 | 1 | 1910-03-02 | 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 390 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 326 AF — 84% of that, and 5th 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 | 610 | 15th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 112 | 9.0 |
| 2011 | 490 | 13th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 48 | 9.0 |
| 2012 | 199 | 1st lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 72 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 382 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 51 | 5.9 |
| 2014 | 397 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 45 | 5.4 |
| 2015 | 317 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 45 | 6.1 |
| 2016 | 390 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 45 | 6.1 |
| 2017 | 418 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 49 | 6.1 |
| 2018 | 296 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 60 | 5.4 |
| 2019 | 448 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 44 | 6.0 |
| 2020 | 418 | 10th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 60 | 6.0 |
| 2021 | 240 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 55 | 4.3 |
| 2022 | 378 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 58 | 6.1 |
| 2023 | 507 | 14th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 56 | 6.2 |
| 2024 | 326 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 49 | 5.7 |
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 | 4192 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 34% of the irrigation seasons in 1967-2024 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.