Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BOB REID DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700776 · 1 · WEST BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:51 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 1890-08-10 — 191st 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: PETER NELSON DITCH (1889-09-10). Immediately behind: BEAVER MEADOWS DITCH NEW (1890-08-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16251.14832 | 1890-08-10 | 1901-03-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRCOMRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUGEVP | 159 |
| 18367.0 | 1900-04-15 | 1901-03-05 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 193 |
| 30894.21062 | 1907-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 0.44 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRCOMRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUGEVP | 405 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 2.68 | 0.0 | C | STOIRRCOMRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUGEVP | 455M |
Legal record & documents
18 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0963, 81CW0479, 03CW0023, W2256.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0963 | 4 | 1936-10-03 | S |
81CW0479 | 7 | 1936-10-03 | S |
03CW0023 | 6 | 1936-10-03 | S |
W2256 | 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 81 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2008, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1988 | 160 | 11th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 74 | 1.2 |
| 1989 | 63 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 43 | 2.3 |
| 1990 | 374 | 14th lowest of 15 · 462% of median | 147 | 1.6 |
| 1991 | 448 | 15th lowest of 15 · 553% of median | 163 | 2.0 |
| 1992 | 199 | 12th lowest of 15 · 246% of median | 76 | 1.9 |
| 1993 | 293 | 13th lowest of 15 · 362% of median | 135 | 1.8 |
| 1994 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 3 | 0.0 |
| 1995 | 95 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 32 | 1.6 |
| 1996 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 1997 | 65 | 5th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 88 | 0.6 |
| 1998 | 82 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 71 | 0.6 |
| 1999 | 73 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 62 | 0.6 |
| 2000 | 79 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 34 | 1.2 |
| 2001 | 81 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 35 | 1.2 |
| 2008 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2811 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 23% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2008 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.