← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

TYNDALL DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5100937 · 1 · WILLIAMS FORK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:56 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 1894-05-01118th 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: MARTE WELL (1893-06-01). Immediately behind: LINKE NO 1 DITCH (1894-06-06).

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. UnitsUsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on.Case
16192.01894-05-011906-08-11 2.50.0 CIRR 99

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 772 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 543 AF — 70% of that, and 6th lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.

YearDiverted (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 recordDays recordedPeak (cfs)
1994 175 3rd lowest of 15 · 23% of median 48 2.0
2008 1,229 14th lowest of 15 · 159% of median 173 4.2
2009 158 2nd lowest of 15 · 20% of median 54 1.5
2010 1,194 12th lowest of 15 · 155% of median 178 4.6
2011 944 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median 169 4.0
2012 792 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median 168 3.7
2013 156 1st lowest of 15 · 20% of median 76 1.2
2015 1,223 13th lowest of 15 · 158% of median 184 4.3
2016 1,348 15th lowest of 15 · 175% of median 170 4.5
2018 701 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median 135 5.2
2019 772 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 122 4.6
2020 528 5th lowest of 15 · 68% of median 125 3.0
2021 907 10th lowest of 15 · 118% of median 184 2.5
2023 242 4th lowest of 15 · 31% of median 123 1.0
2024 543 6th lowest of 15 · 70% of median 170 2.0

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 2270 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity sparse 32% of the irrigation seasons in 1991-2024 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.