Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MCDOWELL VAN TUYL NO 1 D
Structure dossier · WDID 2800637 · 1 · TOMICHI CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:44 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 1879-12-31 — 13th most senior of the 1505 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: MCCANNE NO 1 DITCH (1879-12-31). Immediately behind: HARTMAN DITCH NO 1 (1879-12-31).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10957.0 | 1879-12-31 | 1894-05-01 | 0.127 | 0.0 | C | STORECFISAUGWLD | |
| 16192.10379 | 1878-06-01 | 1904-04-29 | 1.96 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 39 |
| 16192.10744 | 1879-06-01 | 1904-04-29 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 42 |
| 16192.11901 | 1882-08-01 | 1904-04-29 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 64 |
| 28311.10379 | 1878-06-01 | 1943-04-19 | 8.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 208 |
| 28311.10744 | 1879-06-01 | 1943-04-19 | 12.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 210 |
| 28311.11901 | 1882-08-01 | 1943-04-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 229 |
| 53335.0 | 1996-01-10 | 1996-12-31 | 0.0 | 2.0 | C | RECFISAUGWLD |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
96CW0060, CA2079, CA1266.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
96CW0060 | 7 | 1996-12-31 | O, S |
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1266 | 1 | 1904-04-29 | 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 1,404 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 965 AF — 69% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,159 | 5th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 89 | 10.4 |
| 2012 | 559 | 1st lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 105 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 1,065 | 4th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 69 | 11.7 |
| 2014 | 1,296 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 51 | 16.0 |
| 2015 | 4,317 | 14th lowest of 15 · 308% of median | 78 | 44.1 |
| 2016 | 3,935 | 13th lowest of 15 · 280% of median | 74 | 41.9 |
| 2017 | 4,918 | 15th lowest of 15 · 350% of median | 100 | 34.3 |
| 2018 | 1,404 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 107 | 9.9 |
| 2019 | 3,623 | 12th lowest of 15 · 258% of median | 77 | 47.8 |
| 2020 | 2,633 | 11th lowest of 15 · 188% of median | 122 | 15.0 |
| 2021 | 1,825 | 10th lowest of 15 · 130% of median | 124 | 13.6 |
| 2022 | 1,392 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | 123 | 17.0 |
| 2023 | 1,547 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 73 | 20.8 |
| 2024 | 883 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 108 | 4.8 |
| 2025 | 965 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 120 | 5.7 |
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 (8/10 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5086 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 43% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.