Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
YOUMANS IRG D NO 1
Structure dossier · WDID 6200809 · 1 · CEBOLLA CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:51 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 1900-06-01 — 80th 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: SPRING BRANCH DITCH (1900-05-15). Immediately behind: YOUMANS NO 4 DITCH (1900-06-01).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18414.0 | 1900-06-01 | 1904-03-28 | 0.016 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 91 |
| 27585.18414 | 1900-06-01 | 1941-04-21 | 0.05 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 227 |
| 27585.19811 | 1904-03-29 | 1941-04-21 | 0.016 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 252 |
| 35580.0 | 1947-06-01 | 1960-03-30 | 0.17 | 0.0 | C | IRRAUG | 381 |
Legal record & documents
16 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
CA6981, 99CW0251, 00CW0200, CA4742, CA1319.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA6981 | 1 | 1960-03-30 | S |
99CW0251 | 8 | 1960-03-30 | O, S |
00CW0200 | 4 | 1960-03-30 | O, S |
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 862 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2001, came in at 868 AF — 101% of that, and 9th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1977 | 3,832 | 15th lowest of 15 · 444% of median | 161 | 12.0 |
| 1978 | 1,237 | 11th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 116 | 8.5 |
| 1979 | 584 | 7th lowest of 15 · 68% of median | 109 | 7.0 |
| 1980 | 488 | 4th lowest of 15 · 57% of median | 65 | 4.5 |
| 1981 | 862 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 170 | 3.5 |
| 1982 | 200 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 23% of median | 45 | 3.0 |
| 1983 | 910 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 153 | 3.0 |
| 1984 | 319 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 48 | 3.5 |
| 1985 | 192 | 1st lowest of 15 · 22% of median | 43 | 3.0 |
| 1986 | 578 | 6th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 135 | 3.5 |
| 1997 | 2,261 | 13th lowest of 15 · 262% of median | 61 | 36.0 |
| 1998 | 1,315 | 12th lowest of 15 · 153% of median | 57 | 20.0 |
| 1999 | 3,212 | 14th lowest of 15 · 373% of median | 62 | 47.8 |
| 2000 | 550 | 5th lowest of 15 · 64% of median | 52 | 8.3 |
| 2001 | 868 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 59 | 9.6 |
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 (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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1659 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2001 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.