Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BRUNER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5200525 · 1 · PINEY RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:53 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 1894-05-20 — 47th most senior of the 562 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: ROCK CREEK DITCH (1891-05-01). Immediately behind: BRUNER DITCH HDG NO 2 (1894-05-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19190.16211 | 1894-05-20 | 1904-03-08 | 2.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 44 |
| 29437.19905 | 1904-07-01 | 1946-08-30 | 1.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 129 |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1038, CA0426.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1038 | 1 | 1946-08-30 | S |
CA0426 | 1 | 1904-03-08 | 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 269 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 64 AF — 24% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 484 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 105 | 5.0 |
| 1991 | 421 | 14th lowest of 15 · 156% of median | 149 | 5.0 |
| 1993 | 271 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 101 | 2.0 |
| 1997 | 355 | 13th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 72 | 2.5 |
| 1998 | 301 | 12th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 89 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 269 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 100 | 1.8 |
| 2000 | 162 | 6th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 52 | 1.7 |
| 2001 | 72 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 51 | 1.2 |
| 2010 | 143 | 4th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 50 | 1.5 |
| 2011 | 276 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 109 | 1.3 |
| 2012 | 132 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 100 | 1.2 |
| 2013 | 271 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 79 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 158 | 5th lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 81 | 1.1 |
| 2023 | 206 | 7th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 89 | 1.3 |
| 2024 | 64 | 1st lowest of 15 · 24% of median | 82 | 0.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-8 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.003).
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 | 2943 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.