Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHITTENDEN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2800526 · 1 · QUARTZ CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:48 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 1895-05-01 — 173rd most senior of the 1505 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: LOCKETT DITCH (1894-06-01). Immediately behind: PARLIN QUARTZ CREEK D (1895-05-01).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16557.0 | 1895-05-01 | 1904-04-29 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 116 |
| 17319.0 | 1897-06-01 | 1904-04-29 | 1.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 121 |
| 19477.0 | 1903-04-30 | 1904-04-29 | 1.1 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 134 |
| 24074.23896 | 1915-06-05 | 1918-09-03 | 3.7 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 183 |
| 24074.23953 | 1915-08-01 | 1918-09-03 | 2.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 184 |
| 24258.0 | 1916-06-01 | 1918-09-03 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 186 |
| 28311.23896 | 1915-06-05 | 1943-04-19 | 14.8 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 305 |
Legal record & documents
14 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2079, 03CW0063, CA1602, 03CW0065.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2079 | 1 | 1943-04-19 | S |
03CW0063 | 8 | 1943-04-19 | S |
CA1602 | 2 | 1918-09-03 | S |
03CW0065 | 3 | 1904-04-29 | 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 1,192 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,254 AF — 105% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1,632 | 11th lowest of 15 · 137% of median | 84 | 12.6 |
| 2012 | 137 | 1st lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 26 | 7.2 |
| 2013 | 613 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 68 | 6.6 |
| 2014 | 1,192 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 87 | 14.7 |
| 2015 | 1,968 | 13th lowest of 15 · 165% of median | 82 | 16.4 |
| 2016 | 1,741 | 12th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 82 | 16.8 |
| 2017 | 1,993 | 14th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | 84 | 18.1 |
| 2018 | 1,142 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 123 | 9.3 |
| 2019 | 2,371 | 15th lowest of 15 · 199% of median | 62 | 26.0 |
| 2020 | 1,427 | 10th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 92 | 12.4 |
| 2021 | 776 | 5th lowest of 15 · 65% of median | 91 | 10.2 |
| 2022 | 642 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 77 | 6.6 |
| 2023 | 655 | 4th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 80 | 5.4 |
| 2024 | 920 | 6th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 101 | 7.2 |
| 2025 | 1,254 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 98 | 15.0 |
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 | 4994 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 42% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.