Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BROCKER ENDOMILE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700530 · 1 · OWL CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:57 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1880-05-15 — 1st most senior of the 1262 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 behind: CAPRON DITCH (1880-06-21).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11093.0 | 1880-05-15 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 18915.0 | 1901-10-15 | 1908-07-01 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 317 |
| 20605.0 | 1906-06-01 | 1908-07-01 | 9.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 332 |
| 50403.39704 | 1958-09-15 | 1988-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STK |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
88CW0186, W1238-77, CA1783.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
88CW0186 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
W1238-77 | 2 | 1908-07-01 | O |
CA1783 | 1 | 1908-07-01 | 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 529 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 602 AF — 114% of that, and 10th 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 | 1,119 | 15th lowest of 15 · 212% of median | 72 | 15.5 |
| 2011 | 529 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 14 | 20.5 |
| 2012 | 468 | 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 76 | 13.1 |
| 2013 | 489 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 38 | 12.0 |
| 2014 | 950 | 13th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 50 | 11.0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 581 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 48 | 6.9 |
| 2017 | 353 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 45 | 4.1 |
| 2018 | 758 | 12th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 58 | 10.5 |
| 2019 | 522 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 44 | 6.3 |
| 2020 | 378 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 90 | 4.8 |
| 2021 | 405 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 54 | 7.1 |
| 2022 | 974 | 14th lowest of 15 · 184% of median | 52 | 10.5 |
| 2023 | 735 | 11th lowest of 15 · 139% of median | 48 | 10.2 |
| 2024 | 602 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 57 | 11.4 |
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 | 2884 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 26% of the irrigation seasons in 1972-2024 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.