Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
OAKLAND DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7200811 · 1 · BRUSH CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:13 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 1888-09-26 — 87th most senior of the 2166 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: JOHNSON AND STUART DITCH (1888-09-26). Immediately behind: PARKINSON DITCH (1888-09-27).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14149.0 | 1888-09-26 | 1890-02-07 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 78 |
| 14149.0 | 1888-09-26 | 1890-02-07 | 0.36 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 78 |
| 18749.16232 | 1894-06-10 | 1905-10-14 | 1.17 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 28931.14041 | 1888-06-10 | 1934-08-03 | 0.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.14041 | 1888-06-10 | 1941-07-25 | 0.78 | 0.0 | C | DOM | |
| 34419.25688 | 1920-05-01 | 1959-07-21 | 1.26 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 36659.0 | 1950-05-15 | 1959-07-21 | 0.65 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
11 decreed actions on record across
7 court cases:
CA8303, CA5812, CA5626, 84CW0218, CA1222, CA2635, CA0273.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 2 | 1959-07-21 | S |
CA5812 | 1 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA5626 | 2 | 1934-08-03 | S |
84CW0218 | 2 | 1934-08-03 | O, S |
CA1222 | 1 | 1905-10-14 | S |
CA2635 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | 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 554 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 305 AF — 55% of that, and 2nd 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 | 1,149 | 14th lowest of 15 · 207% of median | 304 | 6.3 |
| 2011 | 852 | 12th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 242 | 4.1 |
| 2012 | 806 | 10th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 290 | 2.8 |
| 2013 | 229 | 1st lowest of 15 · 41% of median | 156 | 4.1 |
| 2014 | 471 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 177 | 4.3 |
| 2015 | 422 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 268 | 2.0 |
| 2016 | 807 | 11th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 366 | 5.1 |
| 2017 | 1,037 | 13th lowest of 15 · 187% of median | 349 | 6.9 |
| 2018 | 554 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 323 | 3.5 |
| 2019 | 1,252 | 15th lowest of 15 · 226% of median | 360 | 7.7 |
| 2020 | 652 | 9th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 285 | 3.4 |
| 2021 | 504 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 174 | 2.4 |
| 2022 | 305 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 98 | 2.4 |
| 2023 | 550 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 143 | 2.9 |
| 2024 | 305 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 151 | 1.8 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 11643 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.