Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MURRAY AND YULE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4500705 · 1 · BALDY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:47 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 1881-06-10 — 3rd most senior of the 1378 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: MOORE DITCH (1881-06-10). Immediately behind: MINEOTA DITCH (1882-05-25).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11484.0 | 1881-06-10 | 1888-05-05 | 2.83 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 1 |
| 12175.0 | 1883-05-02 | 1888-05-05 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 11 |
| 12534.0 | 1884-04-25 | 1888-05-05 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 21 |
| 33099.32262 | 1938-05-01 | 1941-07-23 | 8.82 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 172A |
| 54056.48729 | 1983-06-01 | 1998-12-31 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 54056.50541 | 1988-05-17 | 1998-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 58074.48356 | 1982-05-24 | 2009-12-31 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
17 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
00CW0298, 98CW0304, W3262, CA3395, CA0089.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
00CW0298 | 1 | 2009-12-31 | S |
98CW0304 | 2 | 1998-12-31 | S |
W3262 | 8 | 1941-07-23 | O, S |
CA3395 | 2 | 1941-07-23 | O, S |
CA0089 | 4 | 1888-05-05 | 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 1,099 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 1,520 AF — 138% of that, and 15th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 1,099 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 80 | 13.0 |
| 2009 | 1,099 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 80 | 13.0 |
| 2011 | 603 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 38 | 12.0 |
| 2012 | 1,056 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 132 | 11.2 |
| 2013 | 1,519 | 14th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 70 | 16.0 |
| 2014 | 1,247 | 13th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 120 | 11.0 |
| 2015 | 892 | 4th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 89 | 8.0 |
| 2016 | 1,147 | 11th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 112 | 6.8 |
| 2017 | 1,138 | 10th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 106 | 6.9 |
| 2019 | 1,185 | 12th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 125 | 6.9 |
| 2020 | 936 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 89 | 6.9 |
| 2021 | 398 | 1st lowest of 15 · 36% of median | 58 | 5.4 |
| 2022 | 1,042 | 6th lowest of 15 · 95% of median | 74 | 12.0 |
| 2023 | 691 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 63% of median | 66 | 13.9 |
| 2024 | 1,520 | 15th lowest of 15 · 138% of median | 85 | 22.6 |
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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4653 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 44% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2024 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.