Hydrohistorian

← My Water  ·  Print / save as PDF

TEED DITCH

Structure dossier · WDID 5900693 · 1 · STEUBEN CREEK · DWR record

Where this page's figures come from

Generated 2026-08-27 23:44 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 1897-06-30 — 201st 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: ACME DITCH (1897-06-22). Immediately behind: ELK HOME DITCH (1897-07-21).

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
17348.01897-06-301906-09-14 0.3750.0 CIRR 116

Recorded use (last 15 years on record)

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 364 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 320 AF — 88% of that, and 5th 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)
2011 400 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median 135 1.9
2012 413 11th lowest of 15 · 114% of median 185 1.8
2013 364 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 174 1.9
2014 430 13th lowest of 15 · 118% of median 166 2.5
2015 291 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median 118 2.0
2016 271 1st lowest of 15 · 74% of median 153 2.8
2017 287 2nd lowest of 15 · 79% of median 151 1.8
2018 433 14th lowest of 15 · 119% of median 179 2.2
2019 287 2nd lowest of 15 · 79% of median 117 2.2
2020 340 6th lowest of 15 · 93% of median 177 2.6
2021 361 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median 177 2.7
2022 451 15th lowest of 15 · 124% of median 195 2.3
2023 364 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median 120 2.0
2024 415 12th lowest of 15 · 114% of median 189 2.2
2025 320 5th lowest of 15 · 88% of median 134 2.5

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
CheckStateDetail
identity complete name, type, and water source all on file
decreed rights on file 1 right(s), seniority decoded
diversion record present 4825 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against)
record continuity patchy 45% 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.