Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TENDERFOOT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500796 · 1 · WALLACE CREEK · 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 (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 1884-04-07 — 20th most senior of the 1378 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: NUCKOLLS DITCH (1884-04-03). Immediately behind: HUNTER AND GANT DITCH (1884-04-26).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12516.0 | 1884-04-07 | 1890-02-07 | 5.7 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK | 1 |
| 13032.0 | 1885-09-05 | 1893-10-10 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 3 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA0603, CA2635, CA0273, 96CW0349.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0603 | 1 | 1893-10-10 | O |
CA2635 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | O |
CA0273 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | O |
96CW0349 | 1 | 1890-02-07 | 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 1,273 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,211 AF — 95% of that, and 7th 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 | 992 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 216 | 5.7 |
| 2011 | 1,552 | 13th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 195 | 5.7 |
| 2012 | 978 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 259 | 5.8 |
| 2013 | 984 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 365 | 5.7 |
| 2014 | 1,273 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 6.0 |
| 2015 | 1,281 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 226 | 6.7 |
| 2016 | 1,182 | 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 224 | 6.8 |
| 2017 | 1,311 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 153 | 5.7 |
| 2018 | 813 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 202 | 5.7 |
| 2019 | 1,456 | 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 214 | 5.7 |
| 2020 | 1,884 | 15th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 230 | 6.7 |
| 2021 | 1,630 | 14th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 226 | 5.7 |
| 2022 | 1,304 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 204 | 5.7 |
| 2023 | 539 | 1st lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 141 | 2.7 |
| 2024 | 1,211 | 7th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 211 | 5.7 |
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 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 | 8900 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 84% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.