Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
YOUNG DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4000623 · 1 · SMITH FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:18 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 1884-09-15 — 121st most senior of the 4661 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: BARNARD DITCH (1884-09-15). Immediately behind: WC LITTLE COAL CREEK POD (1884-09-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12677.0 | 1884-09-15 | 1889-06-17 | 0.85 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 2 |
| 63187.62797 | 2021-12-06 | 2023-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.02 | C | STO |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
23CW3038, CA0038, 18CW0046, 10CW0019.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
23CW3038 | 1 | 2023-12-31 | S |
CA0038 | 1 | 1889-06-17 | O |
18CW0046 | 3 | 1889-06-17 | O |
10CW0019 | 2 | 1889-06-17 | 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 117 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 69 AF — 59% of that, and 3rd lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 91 | 6th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | — | 165 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 798 | 15th lowest of 15 · 682% of median | — | 190 | 5.5 |
| 2012 | 65 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 56% of median | 57 | 174 | 0.3 |
| 2013 | 180 | 11th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 28 | 194 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 102 | 7th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | — | 180 | 0.7 |
| 2015 | 121 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 74 | 165 | 0.8 |
| 2016 | 173 | 10th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 68 | 196 | 0.9 |
| 2017 | 89 | 5th lowest of 15 · 76% of median | 66 | 175 | 0.4 |
| 2018 | 347 | 14th lowest of 15 · 297% of median | 84 | 186 | 1.2 |
| 2019 | 238 | 13th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 55 | 185 | 1.3 |
| 2020 | 83 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 83 | 170 | 0.2 |
| 2021 | 189 | 12th lowest of 15 · 162% of median | 83 | 171 | 0.9 |
| 2022 | 117 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 80 | 163 | 0.4 |
| 2023 | 60 | 1st lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 60 | 122 | 0.2 |
| 2024 | 69 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 69 | 140 | 0.2 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6014 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 52% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.