Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MRS PAYE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700751 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1899-05-03 — 209th 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: HOLLINGSWORTH POTTER NO2 (1899-03-30). Immediately behind: WOLFE DITCH (1899-06-01).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18020.0 | 1899-05-03 | 1901-03-05 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 188 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 2.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 455CCC |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0963, 03CW0310, CA0385.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0963 | 1 | 1936-10-03 | S |
03CW0310 | 4 | 1936-10-03 | S |
CA0385 | 1 | 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 155 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 138 AF — 89% of that, and 5th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 222 | 12th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 145 | 0.8 |
| 1991 | 141 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 51 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 358 | 15th lowest of 15 · 231% of median | 77 | 3.0 |
| 1993 | 29 | 1st lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 32 | 0.5 |
| 1994 | 30 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 19% of median | 37 | 0.5 |
| 1995 | 176 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 73 | 2.0 |
| 1996 | 231 | 13th lowest of 15 · 149% of median | 79 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 166 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 106 | 1.3 |
| 1998 | 139 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 55 | 1.3 |
| 2003 | 119 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 185 | 1.6 |
| 2004 | 199 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 187 | 0.8 |
| 2006 | 155 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 176 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 106 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 143 | 0.6 |
| 2009 | 261 | 14th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 154 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 138 | 5th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 102 | 0.7 |
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 (7/10 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3873 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2020 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.