Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
Y & V DITCH NO 4
Structure dossier · WDID 3700868 · 1 · GYPSUM CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:30 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 1894-05-15 — 225th most senior of the 2162 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: Y & V DITCH NO 3 (1894-04-20). Immediately behind: TROTTER DIVERSION (1894-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20427.16206 | 1894-05-15 | 1907-06-04 | 1.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 215 |
| 23802.2374 | 1914-12-31 | 1915-06-07 | 2.56 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 215AEX, 21 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA0294, CA0446.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0294 | 2 | 1915-06-07 | S |
CA0446 | 1 | 1907-06-04 | S |
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 781 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2014, came in at 559 AF — 72% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 299 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 38% of median | 150 | 1.2 |
| 1996 | 231 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 106 | 1.4 |
| 1997 | 591 | 6th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 150 | 2.0 |
| 1998 | 781 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 198 | 2.0 |
| 1999 | 1,896 | 15th lowest of 15 · 243% of median | 365 | 4.0 |
| 2000 | 1,496 | 10th lowest of 15 · 192% of median | 366 | 4.0 |
| 2001 | 1,594 | 13th lowest of 15 · 204% of median | 365 | 3.8 |
| 2002 | 1,448 | 9th lowest of 15 · 185% of median | 365 | 2.0 |
| 2003 | 1,583 | 11th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 365 | 4.2 |
| 2004 | 1,588 | 12th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 366 | 4.2 |
| 2005 | 1,708 | 14th lowest of 15 · 219% of median | 304 | 4.2 |
| 2010 | 619 | 7th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 157 | 2.0 |
| 2011 | 547 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 139 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2014 | 559 | 5th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 143 | 2.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 5355 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 39% of the irrigation seasons in 1951-2014 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.