Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JOTE SMITH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3801145 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:46 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 1882-05-14 — 38th most senior of the 4788 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: BURKE & GIDDINGS DITCH (1882-05-12). Immediately behind: KENDALL AND STRICKLETT D (1882-05-15).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11822.0 | 1882-05-14 | 1889-05-11 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 29 |
| 11962.0 | 1882-10-01 | 1889-05-11 | 0.96 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 47 |
| 12575.0 | 1884-06-05 | 1889-05-11 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 96 |
| 28609.21701 | 1909-06-01 | 1928-10-29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 251 |
| 32907.31649 | 1936-08-26 | 1949-08-25 | 0.86 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 443 |
| 32907.31655 | 1936-09-01 | 1949-08-25 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 462 |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
93CW0041, 92CW0007, 89CW0247, CA0132.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
93CW0041 | 2 | 1949-08-25 | O, S |
92CW0007 | 4 | 1949-08-25 | O, S |
89CW0247 | 2 | 1949-08-25 | O, S |
CA0132 | 2 | 1889-05-11 | 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 661 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,066 AF — 161% 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 | 1,474 | 14th lowest of 15 · 223% of median | 173 | 4.4 |
| 2011 | 2,306 | 15th lowest of 15 · 349% of median | 219 | 9.1 |
| 2012 | 645 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 305 | 4.0 |
| 2013 | 364 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 168 | 2.0 |
| 2014 | 71 | 1st lowest of 15 · 11% of median | 365 | 0.4 |
| 2015 | 553 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 365 | 3.6 |
| 2016 | 661 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 366 | 3.1 |
| 2017 | 409 | 4th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 365 | 1.9 |
| 2018 | 309 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 365 | 1.3 |
| 2019 | 644 | 6th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 365 | 3.6 |
| 2020 | 1,226 | 11th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 366 | 4.8 |
| 2021 | 1,103 | 10th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 365 | 5.4 |
| 2022 | 1,295 | 12th lowest of 15 · 196% of median | 365 | 5.4 |
| 2023 | 1,472 | 13th lowest of 15 · 223% of median | 365 | 8.0 |
| 2024 | 1,066 | 9th lowest of 15 · 161% of median | 305 | 7.0 |
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 A (9/10 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9887 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 75% of the irrigation seasons in 1963-2024 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.