Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
MARSHALL ROBERTS DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5700563 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:03 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 1881-10-20 — 1st most senior of the 1003 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 behind: WILLIAMS IRRIG DITCH (1881-10-20).
Decreed rights (5)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11616.0 | 1881-10-20 | 1892-09-22 | 8.78 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 14206.0 | 1888-11-22 | 1892-09-22 | 3.37 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 39 |
| 19250.19052 | 1902-03-01 | 1902-09-16 | 2.42 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 69 |
| 34139.14206 | 1888-11-22 | 1948-07-12 | 3.37 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181 |
| 52595.4742 | 1979-10-31 | 1994-12-31 | 1.25 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
6 court cases:
94CW0015, CA3344, 07/12/1948, 91CW0103, 09/22/1892, 09/01/1922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
94CW0015 | 1 | 1994-12-31 | S |
CA3344 | 3 | 1948-07-12 | O, S |
07/12/1948 | 1 | 1948-07-12 | S |
91CW0103 | 1 | 1902-09-16 | S |
09/22/1892 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | O |
09/01/1922 | 1 | 1892-09-22 | 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 2,918 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 5,257 AF — 180% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 91 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 69 | 1.0 |
| 2012 | 4,305 | 13th lowest of 15 · 148% of median | 182 | 26.7 |
| 2013 | 1,746 | 5th lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 136 | 11.6 |
| 2014 | 1,134 | 4th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | 77 | 20.0 |
| 2015 | 297 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 57 | 3.0 |
| 2016 | 289 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 10% of median | 52 | 4.6 |
| 2017 | 2,353 | 7th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 90 | 27.0 |
| 2018 | 2,918 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 126 | 26.7 |
| 2019 | 3,646 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 153 | 38.1 |
| 2020 | 3,487 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 98 | 30.0 |
| 2021 | 3,583 | 11th lowest of 15 · 123% of median | 171 | 17.8 |
| 2022 | 2,974 | 9th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | 155 | 16.9 |
| 2023 | 1,814 | 6th lowest of 15 · 62% of median | 110 | 20.4 |
| 2024 | 5,028 | 14th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 173 | 27.1 |
| 2025 | 5,257 | 15th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 153 | 23.3 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+293 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.018).
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12593 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 64% of the irrigation seasons in 1934-2025 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.