Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
LOVE AND WHITE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700686 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:37 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 1889-07-31 — 92nd 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: EAGLE RIVER DIVERSION PT (1889-05-10). Immediately behind: DOLL DITCH (1889-08-22).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14457.0 | 1889-07-31 | 1889-12-17 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 83 |
| 16251.12085 | 1883-02-01 | 1901-03-05 | 2.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 134 |
| 17328.0 | 1897-06-10 | 1901-03-05 | 5.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNAUGEVPOTH | 176 |
| 22489.0 | 1911-07-29 | 1911-11-13 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 298 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 9.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 455PP |
| 51864.50821 | 1989-02-21 | 1992-12-31 | 0.0 | 5.1 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
17 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
92CW0310, CA0963, 81CW0479, CA0566, CA0385, 94CW0290, 80CW0345, CA0294.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
92CW0310 | 1 | 1992-12-31 | S |
CA0963 | 1 | 1936-10-03 | S |
81CW0479 | 8 | 1936-10-03 | O, S |
CA0566 | 1 | 1911-11-13 | S |
CA0385 | 2 | 1901-03-05 | S |
94CW0290 | 1 | 1901-03-05 | S |
80CW0345 | 2 | 1901-03-05 | S |
CA0294 | 1 | 1889-12-17 | 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 2,272 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 2,383 AF — 105% of that, and 12th 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 | 1,921 | 6th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 142 | 8.8 |
| 2011 | 1,630 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 98 | 22.6 |
| 2012 | 1,900 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 106 | 20.2 |
| 2013 | 2,272 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 97 | 35.4 |
| 2014 | 2,308 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 124 | 15.9 |
| 2015 | 2,338 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 168 | 10.1 |
| 2016 | 903 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 65 | 10.2 |
| 2017 | 2,644 | 14th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 151 | 13.9 |
| 2018 | 2,453 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 168 | 12.0 |
| 2019 | 1,542 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 76 | 12.0 |
| 2020 | 1,738 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 173 | 11.4 |
| 2021 | 2,288 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 207 | 10.4 |
| 2022 | 2,244 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 130 | 9.8 |
| 2023 | 2,727 | 15th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 149 | 12.0 |
| 2024 | 2,383 | 12th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 168 | 16.0 |
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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8284 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 53% 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.