Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
UPPER TYLER DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 8000741 · DITCH · BEN TYLER GULCH · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 03:37 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (0576005) — 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.
Current administration
● Fully called out — call at LAST CHANCE DITCH 2 (SOUTH PLATTE RIVER, priority 1863-12-30).
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 1885-07-15 — 708th most senior of the 21881 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: 8000500 (1885-07-15). Immediately behind: UNITED DIVERSION FACILITY NO 3 (1885-11-20).
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. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12980.0 | 1885-07-15 | 1913-05-22 | 0.6287 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA1678, 02CW0168.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA1678 | 1 | 1913-05-22 | O |
02CW0168 | 1 | 1913-05-22 | 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 99 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2019, came in at 99 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 75 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 61 | 0.6 |
| 2004 | 27 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 24 | 0.6 |
| 2005 | 95 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 77 | 0.6 |
| 2006 | 15 | 1st lowest of 15 · 15% of median | 18 | 0.5 |
| 2007 | 195 | 15th lowest of 15 · 197% of median | 158 | 0.6 |
| 2008 | 164 | 12th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 136 | 0.6 |
| 2009 | 160 | 10th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 131 | 0.6 |
| 2010 | 162 | 11th lowest of 15 · 164% of median | 158 | 0.6 |
| 2011 | 167 | 13th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 163 | 0.6 |
| 2014 | 108 | 9th lowest of 15 · 109% of median | 154 | 0.5 |
| 2015 | 167 | 13th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 129 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 52 | 4th lowest of 15 · 52% of median | 43 | 0.6 |
| 2017 | 69 | 5th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 93 | 0.6 |
| 2018 | 40 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 41 | 0.5 |
| 2019 | 99 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 51 | 1.0 |
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 (7/10 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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2747 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 29% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2019 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.