Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MATHEWS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700694 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:35 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 1883-06-01 — 17th 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: CHATFIELD BARTHOLOMEW D (1883-05-15). Immediately behind: F M S DITCH (1884-03-01).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12205.0 | 1883-06-01 | 1889-12-17 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 13 |
| 13918.0 | 1888-02-08 | 1889-12-17 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 60 |
| 14456.0 | 1889-07-30 | 1889-12-17 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 82 |
| 16902.0 | 1896-04-10 | 1901-03-05 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 171 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 13.74 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 455SS |
Legal record & documents
12 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA0963, CA0385, CA0294, 81CW0479, 05CW0282.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0963 | 4 | 1936-10-03 | O, S |
CA0385 | 1 | 1901-03-05 | S |
CA0294 | 3 | 1889-12-17 | O |
81CW0479 | 2 | 1889-12-17 | O |
05CW0282 | 2 | 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 2,042 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 967 AF — 47% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2,652 | 14th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | — | 114 | 12.0 |
| 2011 | 2,557 | 13th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | — | 147 | 18.6 |
| 2012 | 3,364 | 15th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | — | 183 | 21.9 |
| 2013 | 1,675 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | — | 88 | 20.5 |
| 2014 | 1,558 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | — | 164 | 9.5 |
| 2015 | 2,059 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | — | 207 | 11.3 |
| 2016 | 2,042 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 48 | 216 | 11.7 |
| 2017 | 1,950 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 35 | 240 | 12.0 |
| 2018 | 2,137 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 35 | 304 | 16.6 |
| 2019 | 2,147 | 11th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 42 | 245 | 16.1 |
| 2020 | 2,232 | 12th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 35 | 354 | 14.4 |
| 2021 | 1,556 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 35 | 365 | 9.8 |
| 2022 | 1,621 | 4th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 35 | 365 | 12.8 |
| 2023 | 1,867 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 35 | 365 | 14.8 |
| 2024 | 967 | 1st lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 35 | 305 | 10.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-66 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.048).
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10221 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 65% 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.