Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
YONCH DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4301024 · 1 · FLAG CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:12 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1887-05-05 — 90th most senior of the 3293 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: FAWN CREEK DITCH (1887-05-01). Immediately behind: DECKER IRRIGATION DITCH (1887-05-06).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13639.0 | 1887-05-05 | 1889-05-10 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 72 |
| 54329.0 | 1998-09-30 | 1998-12-31 | 0.0 | 2.0 | C | OTH |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
98CW0309, CA0133.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0309 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
CA0133 | 1 | 1889-05-10 | 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 192 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 58 AF — 30% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 261 | 9th lowest of 15 · 136% of median | 87 | 2.0 |
| 2007 | 321 | 12th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 75 | 4.0 |
| 2008 | 381 | 13th lowest of 15 · 198% of median | 92 | 2.5 |
| 2009 | 289 | 10th lowest of 15 · 150% of median | 98 | 2.0 |
| 2010 | 400 | 14th lowest of 15 · 208% of median | 102 | 4.0 |
| 2011 | 192 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 48 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 155 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 54 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 143 | 6th lowest of 15 · 74% of median | 47 | 3.5 |
| 2014 | 298 | 11th lowest of 15 · 155% of median | 151 | 1.2 |
| 2015 | 111 | 5th lowest of 15 · 58% of median | 57 | 1.5 |
| 2016 | 68 | 4th lowest of 15 · 35% of median | 39 | 1.2 |
| 2020 | 45 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 16 | 1.5 |
| 2023 | 458 | 15th lowest of 15 · 238% of median | 44 | 6.8 |
| 2024 | 41 | 1st lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 40 | 0.5 |
| 2025 | 58 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 30% of median | 23 | 1.4 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-16 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.013).
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 | 4557 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 33% of the irrigation seasons in 1960-2025 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.