Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
YAMPA RIVER DIVERSION
Structure dossier · WDID 5801922 · 1 · YAMPA RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:13 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 1888-10-29 — 84th most senior of the 3097 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: SUTTLE DITCH (1888-10-29). Immediately behind: JAMES WHEELER DITCH (1889-02-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14182.0 | 1888-10-29 | 1892-09-22 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | (61)65 |
| 33782.21701 | 1909-06-01 | 1946-09-14 | 0.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 299 |
| 40718.0 | 1961-06-25 | 1964-03-30 | 0.87 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 50 |
| 54296.0 | 1998-08-28 | 1998-12-31 | 4.45 | 0.55 | C | IRRRECFIS | |
| 54939.0 | 2000-06-01 | 2000-12-31 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIREVPWLD |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
09CW0028, 00CW0074, 98CW0039, 06CW0016.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
09CW0028 | 1 | 2000-12-31 | S |
00CW0074 | 4 | 2000-12-31 | O, S |
98CW0039 | 1 | 1998-12-31 | S |
06CW0016 | 2 | 1998-12-31 | 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 97 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 111 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 63 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 20 | 1.9 |
| 2006 | 49 | 1st lowest of 15 · 50% of median | 19 | 1.5 |
| 2007 | 252 | 13th lowest of 15 · 260% of median | 60 | 2.3 |
| 2008 | 68 | 4th lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 31 | 2.2 |
| 2009 | 100 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 50 | 2.3 |
| 2010 | 85 | 7th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 55 | 1.2 |
| 2011 | 80 | 6th lowest of 15 · 82% of median | 34 | 2.8 |
| 2012 | 265 | 15th lowest of 15 · 273% of median | 92 | 3.2 |
| 2013 | 217 | 12th lowest of 15 · 224% of median | 77 | 2.9 |
| 2014 | 120 | 11th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 51 | 1.6 |
| 2015 | 97 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 48 | 3.7 |
| 2020 | 255 | 14th lowest of 15 · 263% of median | 82 | 4.4 |
| 2022 | 52 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 27 | 1.2 |
| 2024 | 76 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 37 | 3.2 |
| 2025 | 111 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 63 | 2.5 |
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 (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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 932 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 19% of the irrigation seasons in 2002-2025 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.