Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
TEACHOUT DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5900691 · 1 · OHIO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:32 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 1880-04-30 — 26th most senior of the 2360 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: BIEBEL NO 1 DITCH (1880-04-10). Immediately behind: HYZER KETCHUM DITCH (1880-05-01).
Decreed rights (9)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11078.0 | 1880-04-30 | 1906-09-14 | 2.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 17 |
| 11475.0 | 1881-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 29 |
| 12571.0 | 1884-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 1.625 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 48 |
| 13301.0 | 1886-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 56 |
| 13666.0 | 1887-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 4.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63 |
| 14396.0 | 1889-05-31 | 1906-09-14 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 75 |
| 14397.0 | 1889-06-01 | 1906-09-14 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 76 |
| 30667.11078 | 1880-04-30 | 1941-04-29 | 14.875 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 289 |
| 30667.11475 | 1881-06-01 | 1941-04-29 | 20.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 298 |
Legal record & documents
28 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA5837, CA2021, CA1325.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5837 | 18 | 1941-04-29 | O, S |
CA2021 | 2 | 1941-04-29 | S |
CA1325 | 8 | 1906-09-14 | 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 3,200 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,863 AF — 58% of that, and 1st 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 | 5,866 | 13th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | 118 | 41.0 |
| 2012 | 4,422 | 12th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 172 | 36.1 |
| 2013 | 7,062 | 15th lowest of 15 · 221% of median | 128 | 41.5 |
| 2014 | 6,045 | 14th lowest of 15 · 189% of median | 172 | 37.4 |
| 2015 | 2,932 | 6th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 83 | 27.2 |
| 2016 | 2,882 | 4th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 116 | 34.0 |
| 2017 | 2,209 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 82 | 19.9 |
| 2018 | 2,384 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 142 | 23.9 |
| 2019 | 2,929 | 5th lowest of 15 · 92% of median | 106 | 26.7 |
| 2020 | 3,200 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 116 | 21.6 |
| 2021 | 4,230 | 11th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 109 | 27.8 |
| 2022 | 3,101 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 108 | 23.9 |
| 2023 | 3,295 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 135 | 31.5 |
| 2024 | 3,463 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 116 | 27.8 |
| 2025 | 1,863 | 1st lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 73 | 18.4 |
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 | 9 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5971 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2025 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.