Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
YOUMANS IRG DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 6200808 · 1 · ELK CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 05:24 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 1881-06-30 — 20th most senior of the 1980 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: SAMMONS IRG D NO 5 (1881-06-01). Immediately behind: ANDREWS DITCH (1882-05-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11504.0 | 1881-06-30 | 1904-03-28 | 1.57 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 22 |
| 27585.11504 | 1881-06-30 | 1941-04-21 | 4.43 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 182 |
| 31577.0 | 1936-06-15 | 1941-04-21 | 1.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 328 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA4742, CA1319.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA4742 | 2 | 1941-04-21 | S |
CA1319 | 1 | 1904-03-28 | 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 325 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 10 AF — 3% of that, and 1st 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 | 335 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 55 | 5.5 |
| 2011 | 478 | 12th lowest of 15 · 147% of median | 89 | 3.5 |
| 2012 | 230 | 4th lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 145 | 1.4 |
| 2013 | 192 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 59% of median | 70 | 3.2 |
| 2014 | 606 | 14th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 88 | 5.2 |
| 2015 | 335 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 60 | 5.1 |
| 2017 | 622 | 15th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 77 | 5.9 |
| 2018 | 38 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 90 | 0.4 |
| 2019 | 587 | 13th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 122 | 5.2 |
| 2020 | 398 | 11th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 61 | 4.8 |
| 2021 | 272 | 5th lowest of 15 · 84% of median | 53 | 3.6 |
| 2022 | 297 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 74 | 3.1 |
| 2023 | 325 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 65 | 4.4 |
| 2024 | 305 | 7th lowest of 15 · 94% of median | 135 | 3.1 |
| 2025 | 10 | 1st lowest of 15 · 3% of median | 22 | 0.5 |
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 (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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 3438 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 41% of the irrigation seasons in 1986-2025 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.