Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
JAMES MARION YOAST RES
Structure dossier · WDID 5703571 · 3 · YOAST CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:49 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 1909-07-31 — 116th 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: YOAST FEEDER DITCH (1909-07-31). Immediately behind: EMRICH RES (1911-09-16).
Decreed rights (1)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23654.21761 | 1909-07-31 | 1915-06-29 | 301.27 | 0.0 | A | IRR | 86AA |
Legal record & documents
1 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
06/29/1915.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
06/29/1915 | 1 | 1915-06-29 | S |
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 143 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2023, came in at 169 AF — 118% of that, and 12th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 49 | 1st lowest of 14 · 34% of median | 183 | 47 | 0.5 |
| 2009 | 188 | 13th lowest of 14 · 132% of median | 232 | 186 | 0.5 |
| 2010 | 131 | 6th lowest of 14 · 92% of median | 125 | 137 | 0.9 |
| 2012 | 156 | 10th lowest of 14 · 109% of median | 189 | 46 | 3.4 |
| 2013 | 127 | 5th lowest of 14 · 89% of median | 213 | 66 | 1.9 |
| 2014 | 243 | 14th lowest of 14 · 170% of median | 281 | 51 | 2.5 |
| 2015 | 108 | 3rd lowest of 14 · 76% of median | 189 | 63 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 115 | 4th lowest of 14 · 80% of median | 130 | 29 | 4.2 |
| 2017 | — | no recorded volume | 141 | 0 | — |
| 2018 | 162 | 11th lowest of 14 · 113% of median | 113 | 42 | 2.8 |
| 2019 | 151 | 9th lowest of 14 · 106% of median | 121 | 84 | 1.0 |
| 2020 | 144 | 8th lowest of 14 · 101% of median | — | 42 | 2.0 |
| 2021 | 142 | 7th lowest of 14 · 99% of median | — | 82 | 2.6 |
| 2022 | 87 | 2nd lowest of 14 · 61% of median | 117 | 95 | 0.5 |
| 2023 | 169 | 12th lowest of 14 · 118% of median | 79 | 49 | 2.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
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 | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1019 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 2008-2023 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.