Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCBRAYER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700698 · 1 · GYPSUM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:36 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 1884-06-01 — 22nd 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: DITCH NO 2 DITCH (1884-05-01). Immediately behind: SHERWOOD DITCH (1884-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12571.0 | 1884-06-01 | 1889-12-17 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFIRDOMAUG | 22 |
| 15310.0 | 1891-12-01 | 1894-06-29 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 109 |
| 15310.0 | 1891-12-01 | 1894-06-29 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 110 |
| 23802.2374 | 1914-12-31 | 1915-06-07 | 5.23 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNINDRECFIRDOMAUG | 109EX, 110 |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0294, 02CW0369.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0294 | 7 | 1915-06-07 | O, S |
02CW0369 | 4 | 1915-06-07 | O, 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 163 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 707 AF — 434% of that, and 13th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 163 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 165 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 10 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 6% of median | — | 52 | 0.1 |
| 2013 | 70 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 43% of median | — | 178 | 0.2 |
| 2014 | 96 | 4th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | — | 98 | 0.5 |
| 2015 | 147 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 147 | 184 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 147 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 147 | 184 | 0.8 |
| 2017 | 245 | 10th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 147 | 184 | 1.8 |
| 2018 | 494 | 11th lowest of 15 · 303% of median | 147 | 184 | 8.0 |
| 2019 | 147 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 147 | 184 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | 205 | 9th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 147 | 184 | 1.2 |
| 2021 | 697 | 12th lowest of 15 · 428% of median | 147 | 184 | 2.9 |
| 2022 | 768 | 15th lowest of 15 · 471% of median | 147 | 184 | 4.9 |
| 2023 | 756 | 14th lowest of 15 · 464% of median | 147 | 184 | 3.2 |
| 2024 | 707 | 13th lowest of 15 · 434% of median | 205 | 184 | 3.4 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+49 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7961 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 51% 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.