Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
BANKS-TYNER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 3001033 · 1 · FLORIDA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:33 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 1893-03-08 — 344th most senior of the 2277 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: AMBOLD DITCH NO 2 (1893-03-03). Immediately behind: BEAR WALLOW DITCH (1893-05-05).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15773.0 | 1893-03-08 | 1923-11-08 | 0.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-28 |
| 22639.0 | 1911-12-26 | 1923-11-08 | 5.3333 | 0.0 | C | IRR | F-86 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
W0742, W0029, CA1751, 95CW0031.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0742 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
W0029 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | O |
CA1751 | 2 | 1923-11-08 | O |
95CW0031 | 1 | 1923-11-08 | 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 1,094 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,097 AF — 100% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,050 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 167 | 4.8 |
| 2012 | 698 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 159 | 3.8 |
| 2013 | 704 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 160 | 5.9 |
| 2014 | 1,094 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 170 | 6.8 |
| 2015 | 1,101 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 175 | 6.0 |
| 2016 | 917 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 161 | 4.3 |
| 2017 | 1,075 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 158 | 6.9 |
| 2018 | 644 | 1st lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 180 | 4.4 |
| 2019 | 777 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 149 | 4.9 |
| 2020 | 1,256 | 12th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 171 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 1,380 | 13th lowest of 15 · 126% of median | 167 | 6.0 |
| 2022 | 1,695 | 15th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 185 | 9.2 |
| 2023 | 1,431 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 173 | 7.0 |
| 2024 | 1,155 | 11th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 169 | 6.4 |
| 2025 | 1,097 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 167 | 6.2 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+33 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.029).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15595 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 75% of the irrigation seasons in 1928-2025 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.