Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOVE FROST DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700685 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 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 1881-03-01 — 138th 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: ADAMS RIB WELL AR-3 (1880-10-20). Immediately behind: WILKINSON DITCH (1882-04-30).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16251.11383 | 1881-03-01 | 1901-03-05 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 131 |
| 16251.12173 | 1883-04-30 | 1901-03-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 135 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 2.78 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 455MM |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0963, CA0385.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0963 | 1 | 1936-10-03 | S |
CA0385 | 2 | 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 928 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 801 AF — 86% of that, and 7th 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 | 262 | 1st lowest of 15 · 28% of median | 147 | 1.6 |
| 2011 | 695 | 5th lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 132 | 3.9 |
| 2012 | 1,681 | 15th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 168 | 14.9 |
| 2013 | 415 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 45% of median | 80 | 5.6 |
| 2014 | 972 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 153 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 1,410 | 14th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | 177 | 6.8 |
| 2016 | 554 | 4th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 129 | 4.6 |
| 2017 | 1,159 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 196 | 4.6 |
| 2018 | 928 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 163 | 4.6 |
| 2019 | 1,047 | 11th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 135 | 5.7 |
| 2020 | 1,250 | 13th lowest of 15 · 135% of median | 212 | 7.0 |
| 2021 | 450 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 202 | 3.5 |
| 2022 | 738 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 365 | 4.5 |
| 2023 | 966 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 365 | 5.7 |
| 2024 | 801 | 7th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 304 | 5.3 |
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 (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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9557 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 61% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2024 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.