Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FROST CREEK DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700605 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 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 1883-12-31 — 142nd most senior of the 2162 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: BENEDICT PUMP & PL. (1882-10-08). Immediately behind: HASHBERGER DITCH (1884-06-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16251.12418 | 1883-12-31 | 1901-03-05 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 136 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 3.81 | 0.24 | C | IRR | 455CC |
| 54506.0 | 1999-03-26 | 1999-12-31 | 0.0 | 2.5 | C | IRRRECFISFIRAUGOTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
99CW0242, CA0963, CA0385.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0242 | 1 | 1999-12-31 | S |
CA0963 | 2 | 1936-10-03 | S |
CA0385 | 1 | 1901-03-05 | 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 166 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 51 AF — 31% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 150 | 7th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 75 | 1.8 |
| 1991 | 166 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 70 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1993 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 1994 | 45 | 5th lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 16 | 1.8 |
| 1995 | 204 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 57 | 2.0 |
| 1996 | 186 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 48 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 287 | 12th lowest of 15 · 173% of median | 117 | 2.1 |
| 1998 | 500 | 14th lowest of 15 · 301% of median | 127 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 500 | 14th lowest of 15 · 301% of median | 127 | 2.0 |
| 2000 | 415 | 13th lowest of 15 · 250% of median | 134 | 2.0 |
| 2001 | 186 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 147 | 2.0 |
| 2005 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2007 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 51 | 6th lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 214 | 0.4 |
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 | 3216 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 21% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2021 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.