Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TOTTEN RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 3203601 · 3 · TRANSBASIN WATER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:07 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (f6d7fdc) — 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 1907-04-25 — 145th most senior of the 638 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: POWELL AND CODY DITCH (1907-02-14). Immediately behind: EATON DITCH (1908-03-10).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20933.0 | 1907-04-25 | 1933-12-18 | 400.0 | 0.0 | A | IRR | D-5R |
| 36921.0 | 1951-02-01 | 1963-03-22 | 3000.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRDOMSTKOTH | 62-3 |
| 56238.0 | 2003-12-22 | 2003-12-31 | 0.0 | 6800.0 | A | IRRMUNINDFIRDOMSTKAUG |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
04CW0046, 99CW0069, 03CW0112, W0027, CA0967.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
04CW0046 | 1 | 2004-12-31 | S |
99CW0069 | 1 | 2003-12-31 | S |
03CW0112 | 1 | 2003-12-31 | S |
W0027 | 1 | 1963-03-22 | S |
CA0967 | 2 | 1963-03-22 | 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 2,746 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 4,992 AF — 182% of that, and 14th lowest of the 14 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | — | no recorded volume | 5,593 | 0 | — |
| 2010 | 79 | 1st lowest of 14 · 3% of median | — | 61 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 2,095 | 4th lowest of 14 · 76% of median | 676 | 296 | 52.6 |
| 2012 | 910 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 33% of median | 166 | 311 | 7.0 |
| 2013 | 3,119 | 10th lowest of 14 · 114% of median | 683 | 365 | 38.2 |
| 2014 | 2,754 | 8th lowest of 14 · 100% of median | 836 | 365 | 19.2 |
| 2015 | 2,586 | 5th lowest of 14 · 94% of median | 341 | 365 | 13.5 |
| 2016 | 4,019 | 13th lowest of 14 · 146% of median | 1,115 | 366 | 23.4 |
| 2017 | 3,774 | 12th lowest of 14 · 138% of median | 783 | 365 | 19.4 |
| 2018 | 2,628 | 6th lowest of 14 · 96% of median | 444 | 336 | 18.9 |
| 2019 | 1,125 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 41% of median | 224 | 253 | 13.3 |
| 2020 | 3,333 | 11th lowest of 14 · 121% of median | 256 | 366 | 29.1 |
| 2021 | 2,737 | 7th lowest of 14 · 100% of median | 0 | 365 | 76.0 |
| 2022 | 2,837 | 9th lowest of 14 · 103% of median | 185 | 365 | 19.3 |
| 2023 | 4,992 | 14th lowest of 14 · 182% of median | 179 | 304 | 46.5 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 14 recorded years (+164 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.049).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4483 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 79% of the irrigation seasons in 1997-2023 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.