Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SCHLUTTER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3700792 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:38 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 1906-06-01 — 375th 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: C A C NO 2 DITCH (1905-07-30). Immediately behind: BUFFEHR & ROSE DITCH (1910-05-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30894.20605 | 1906-06-01 | 1936-10-03 | 0.51 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 400 |
| 30894.26906 | 1923-09-01 | 1936-10-03 | 1.73 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 455Y |
| 54506.0 | 1999-03-26 | 1999-12-31 | 0.0 | 6.5 | C | IRRRECFISFIRAUGOTHWLD |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
99CW0242, CA0963.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0242 | 1 | 1999-12-31 | S |
CA0963 | 4 | 1936-10-03 | 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 179 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 144 AF — 80% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 79 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 134 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 367 | 11th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | 127 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 1,091 | 14th lowest of 15 · 610% of median | 189 | 2.9 |
| 2012 | 1,048 | 13th lowest of 15 · 586% of median | 197 | 4.0 |
| 2013 | 1,775 | 15th lowest of 15 · 992% of median | 184 | 7.9 |
| 2014 | 373 | 12th lowest of 15 · 208% of median | 109 | 3.5 |
| 2015 | 279 | 10th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 65 | 2.7 |
| 2016 | 145 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 208 | 0.7 |
| 2017 | 179 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 212 | 0.9 |
| 2018 | 140 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 211 | 1.2 |
| 2019 | 120 | 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 173 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | 18 | 1st lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 209 | 0.1 |
| 2022 | 44 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 25% of median | 148 | 0.5 |
| 2023 | 207 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 135 | 1.2 |
| 2024 | 144 | 6th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 181 | 0.9 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-30 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4272 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 27% 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.