Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TIPTON IRR DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4400785 · 1 · DRY FORK LITTLE BEAR CRE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:01 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 1903-06-17 — 248th most senior of the 3562 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: OLD ELLIS & KITCHENS DIT (1903-05-26). Immediately behind: SAWMILL CG (1905-06-12).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19997.19525 | 1903-06-17 | 1905-09-18 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
| 20090.0 | 1905-01-02 | 1905-09-18 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 79 |
| 29883.21183 | 1907-12-31 | 1933-10-30 | 1.83 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 121C |
| 37537.0 | 1952-10-09 | 1960-09-01 | 10.63 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 74 |
| 47732.0 | 1980-09-07 | 1980-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
89CW0053, W0826-75, CA1278, 84CW0071, CA0616, CA0479, CA0478, 09/18/1905.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
89CW0053 | 1 | 1980-12-31 | S |
W0826-75 | 1 | 1960-09-01 | S |
CA1278 | 2 | 1960-09-01 | S |
84CW0071 | 3 | 1960-09-01 | S |
CA0616 | 1 | 1933-10-30 | S |
CA0479 | 1 | 1905-09-18 | S |
CA0478 | 1 | 1905-09-18 | S |
09/18/1905 | 4 | 1905-09-18 | 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 1,006 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,205 AF — 120% of that, and 11th 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 | 1,168 | 9th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 188 | 12.0 |
| 2012 | 976 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 162 | 12.0 |
| 2013 | 790 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 182 | 10.2 |
| 2014 | 1,252 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 253 | 13.9 |
| 2015 | 1,731 | 15th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 355 | 12.0 |
| 2016 | 1,190 | 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 294 | 10.2 |
| 2017 | 744 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 80 | 9.3 |
| 2018 | 505 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 92 | 10.2 |
| 2019 | 75 | 1st lowest of 15 · 8% of median | 203 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 959 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 110 | 18.1 |
| 2021 | 1,006 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 247 | 15.6 |
| 2022 | 1,321 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 287 | 16.0 |
| 2023 | 1,278 | 13th lowest of 15 · 127% of median | 258 | 16.0 |
| 2024 | 926 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 192 | 16.4 |
| 2025 | 1,205 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 210 | 17.2 |
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 (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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 7292 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 36% of the irrigation seasons in 1932-2025 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.