Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TYLER RESERVOIR
Structure dossier · WDID 4003403 · 3 · MUDDY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:20 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 1954-10-01 — 1978th most senior of the 4661 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: WINEY NO 1 WELL (1954-05-01). Immediately behind: BOTTLE STOMP RESERVOIR (1954-10-14).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38259.0 | 1954-10-01 | 1964-01-31 | 169.3 | 0.0 | A | IRR | K118 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4808, 05CW0246.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4808 | 1 | 1964-01-31 | S |
05CW0246 | 2 | 1964-01-31 | 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 83 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2011, came in at 1 AF — 1% of that, and 1st lowest of the 12 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1989 | — | no recorded volume | 149 | 0 | — |
| 1991 | — | no recorded volume | 143 | 0 | — |
| 1992 | — | no recorded volume | 188 | 0 | — |
| 1993 | 83 | 6th lowest of 12 · 100% of median | — | 15 | 3.0 |
| 1994 | 132 | 12th lowest of 12 · 159% of median | — | 20 | 3.5 |
| 1995 | 131 | 11th lowest of 12 · 158% of median | — | 24 | 3.0 |
| 1996 | 125 | 10th lowest of 12 · 151% of median | — | 22 | 3.0 |
| 1997 | 89 | 8th lowest of 12 · 107% of median | — | 16 | 3.0 |
| 1998 | 79 | 5th lowest of 12 · 95% of median | — | 9 | 5.0 |
| 1999 | 77 | 4th lowest of 12 · 93% of median | — | 14 | 3.0 |
| 2000 | 90 | 9th lowest of 12 · 108% of median | — | 15 | 3.5 |
| 2001 | 65 | 3rd lowest of 12 · 78% of median | — | 12 | 3.0 |
| 2004 | 83 | 6th lowest of 12 · 100% of median | — | 13 | 3.5 |
| 2005 | 54 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 65% of median | — | 10 | 3.0 |
| 2011 | 1 | 1st lowest of 12 · 1% of median | — | 10 | 0.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 12 recorded years (-6 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.004).
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 180 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 2% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2011 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.