Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHAPMAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 4700552 · 1 · LITTLE GRIZZLY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:49 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 1886-05-31 — 80th most senior of the 1262 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: WEST BUFFALO DITCH (1886-05-25). Immediately behind: MICHIGAN HIGHLINE DITCH (1886-05-31).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13300.0 | 1886-05-31 | 1892-09-19 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 30 |
| 13665.0 | 1887-05-31 | 1892-09-19 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 50 |
| 14780.0 | 1890-06-19 | 1892-09-19 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 116(97) |
| 15127.0 | 1891-06-01 | 1902-04-23 | 16.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 122 |
| 50403.50306 | 1987-09-25 | 1988-12-31 | 40.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
9 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
95CW0004, 88CW0030, 01CW0067, CA1523, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
95CW0004 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
88CW0030 | 3 | 1988-12-31 | S |
01CW0067 | 1 | 1988-12-31 | S |
CA1523 | 1 | 1902-04-23 | O |
CA0922 | 3 | 1892-09-19 | 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 3,234 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,555 AF — 48% of that, and 3rd 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 3,757 | 11th lowest of 15 · 116% of median | 61 | 58.0 |
| 2010 | 3,107 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 81 | 57.6 |
| 2012 | 4,704 | 13th lowest of 15 · 146% of median | 179 | 43.3 |
| 2013 | 3,692 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 189 | 38.0 |
| 2014 | 3,403 | 9th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 107 | 52.4 |
| 2015 | 4,980 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 76 | 56.3 |
| 2016 | 3,234 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 52 | 37.3 |
| 2017 | 5,656 | 15th lowest of 15 · 175% of median | 90 | 39.0 |
| 2018 | 2,228 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 64 | 32.3 |
| 2019 | 2,954 | 6th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 141 | 70.1 |
| 2021 | 35 | 1st lowest of 15 · 1% of median | 8 | 2.5 |
| 2022 | 1,531 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 47% of median | 81 | 11.0 |
| 2023 | 2,820 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 48 | 44.0 |
| 2024 | 3,824 | 12th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 49 | 52.0 |
| 2025 | 1,555 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 48% of median | 85 | 12.0 |
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 (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 | 4418 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 31% of the irrigation seasons in 1959-2025 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.