Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
WILLIAMS IRRIG DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5700622 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:55 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 — 2nd 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 ahead: MARSHALL ROBERTS DITCH (1881-10-20). Immediately behind: MARSHALL ROBERTS ALT PT (1881-10-20).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11616.0 | 1881-10-20 | 1892-09-22 | 2.52 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
| 12700.0 | 1884-10-08 | 1892-09-22 | 3.55 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 10 |
| 14154.0 | 1888-10-01 | 1892-09-22 | 1.78 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 36 |
| 14206.0 | 1888-11-22 | 1892-09-22 | 0.96 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 39 |
| 34139.14154 | 1888-10-01 | 1948-07-12 | 6.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 179 |
| 34139.14206 | 1888-11-22 | 1948-07-12 | 0.96 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 181 |
| 39925.34819 | 1945-05-01 | 1962-11-15 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A-10, A-11 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA3081, CA3344, 07/12/1948, 09/22/1892.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA3081 | 2 | 1962-11-15 | S |
CA3344 | 3 | 1948-07-12 | O, S |
07/12/1948 | 1 | 1948-07-12 | S |
09/22/1892 | 2 | 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 2,374 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,697 AF — 114% of that, and 10th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2,110 | 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 155 | 20.0 |
| 2012 | 4,545 | 15th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 212 | 25.6 |
| 2013 | 4,066 | 14th lowest of 15 · 171% of median | 182 | 16.9 |
| 2014 | 3,940 | 13th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | 185 | 23.1 |
| 2015 | 735 | 1st lowest of 15 · 31% of median | 163 | 7.6 |
| 2016 | 2,374 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 205 | 34.2 |
| 2017 | 1,643 | 6th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 149 | 12.0 |
| 2018 | 1,271 | 4th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 163 | 11.1 |
| 2019 | 2,724 | 11th lowest of 15 · 115% of median | 166 | 30.1 |
| 2020 | 2,538 | 9th lowest of 15 · 107% of median | 190 | 13.5 |
| 2021 | 988 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 42% of median | 195 | 5.4 |
| 2022 | 962 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 40% of median | 140 | 11.4 |
| 2023 | 1,278 | 5th lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 47 | 23.6 |
| 2024 | 2,967 | 12th lowest of 15 · 125% of median | 209 | 21.3 |
| 2025 | 2,697 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 218 | 20.6 |
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 | 14020 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 72% 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.