Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MILES DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700711 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:19 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 1887-05-01 — 74th 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: JHY WELL NO 2 (1887-04-01). Immediately behind: ADAMS RIB WELL AR-2 (1887-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13635.0 | 1887-05-01 | 1889-12-17 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 54 |
| 18476.0 | 1900-08-02 | 1901-03-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 197 |
| 20427.19144 | 1902-06-01 | 1907-06-04 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 240 |
| 25708.19144 | 1902-06-01 | 1921-06-29 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 353 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 13.33 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 455T, 455U |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
W0137, CA0963, 13CW3101, 02CW0347, 99CW0243, CA0294.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0137 | 1 | 1936-10-03 | S |
CA0963 | 2 | 1936-10-03 | S |
13CW3101 | 4 | 1936-10-03 | S |
02CW0347 | 1 | 1936-10-03 | S |
99CW0243 | 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 241 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 242 AF — 100% of that, and 9th 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 | 251 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 127 | 2.6 |
| 2011 | 586 | 14th lowest of 15 · 243% of median | 189 | 3.7 |
| 2012 | 266 | 13th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 197 | 1.4 |
| 2013 | 214 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 64 | 2.8 |
| 2014 | 241 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 179 | 5.2 |
| 2015 | 188 | 1st lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 214 | 1.2 |
| 2016 | 206 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 206 | 0.8 |
| 2017 | 201 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 202 | 2.8 |
| 2018 | 254 | 11th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 212 | 1.1 |
| 2019 | 211 | 4th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 214 | 0.5 |
| 2020 | 816 | 15th lowest of 15 · 339% of median | 199 | 2.1 |
| 2021 | 258 | 12th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 214 | 2.1 |
| 2022 | 228 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 214 | 2.1 |
| 2023 | 241 | 7th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 154 | 2.1 |
| 2024 | 242 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 214 | 2.1 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6436 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% 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.