Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TISDEL D NO 2
Structure dossier · WDID 4400786 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:04 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 1900-09-09 — 228th 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: CROSS MTN PUMP NO 1 (1900-09-09). Immediately behind: CROSS MOUNTAIN PUMP DITCH (1900-09-09).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19250.18514 | 1900-09-09 | 1902-09-18 | 2.868 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 103 |
| 36295.34746 | 1945-02-17 | 1960-09-01 | 8.75 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 56 |
| 46112.0 | 1976-04-01 | 1976-12-31 | 2.38 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W0983-76, CA1278, W0386-72.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W0983-76 | 1 | 1976-12-31 | S |
CA1278 | 3 | 1960-09-01 | S |
W0386-72 | 1 | 1902-09-18 | 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 164 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 114 AF — 70% of that, and 6th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 655 | 11th lowest of 15 · 399% of median | 92 | 4.0 |
| 2011 | 559 | 9th lowest of 15 · 341% of median | 73 | 14.1 |
| 2012 | 784 | 13th lowest of 15 · 478% of median | 132 | 4.8 |
| 2013 | 911 | 15th lowest of 15 · 556% of median | 104 | 4.8 |
| 2014 | 647 | 10th lowest of 15 · 394% of median | 98 | 4.8 |
| 2015 | 868 | 14th lowest of 15 · 529% of median | 109 | 4.9 |
| 2016 | 705 | 12th lowest of 15 · 430% of median | 90 | 7.8 |
| 2017 | 85 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 52 | 0.9 |
| 2018 | 113 | 5th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 71 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 164 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 47 | 1.8 |
| 2020 | 57 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 35 | 0.9 |
| 2021 | 72 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 45 | 0.9 |
| 2023 | 56 | 1st lowest of 15 · 34% of median | 25 | 1.6 |
| 2024 | 161 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 63 | 1.3 |
| 2025 | 114 | 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 68 | 1.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-49 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5328 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2025 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.