Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TYRON DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5100936 · 1 · SAINT LOUIS CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:02 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 1890-11-30 — 98th most senior of the 2208 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: GRAND RIVER DITCH (1890-09-01). Immediately behind: KIMSEY NO 1 DITCH (1891-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14944.0 | 1890-11-30 | 1906-08-11 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 85 |
| 20676.14944 | 1890-11-30 | 1911-08-03 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISDOMWLD | 192 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
W2264, CA0183, CA0112.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W2264 | 2 | 1911-08-03 | S |
CA0183 | 1 | 1911-08-03 | S |
CA0112 | 2 | 1906-08-11 | 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 746 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 628 AF — 84% of that, and 5th 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 | 665 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 118 | 6.0 |
| 2011 | 1,153 | 15th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 147 | 13.0 |
| 2012 | 805 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 152 | 3.5 |
| 2013 | 702 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 99 | 5.6 |
| 2014 | 626 | 4th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 152 | 5.6 |
| 2015 | 555 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 176 | 5.8 |
| 2016 | 746 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 183 | 6.5 |
| 2017 | 980 | 14th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | 170 | 7.4 |
| 2018 | 884 | 13th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 185 | 6.8 |
| 2019 | 531 | 1st lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 159 | 3.0 |
| 2020 | 867 | 12th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 180 | 6.0 |
| 2021 | 772 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 177 | 5.1 |
| 2022 | 573 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 170 | 4.0 |
| 2023 | 823 | 11th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 130 | 4.6 |
| 2024 | 628 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 176 | 5.0 |
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 (8/10 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 | 6754 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 64% 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.