Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STAPLES DITCH 1
Structure dossier · WDID 4700895 · 1 · CHEDSEY CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:07 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 1888-05-10 — 147th 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: WOLFER DITCH (1888-05-08). Immediately behind: CLIFTON DITCH (1888-05-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14010.0 | 1888-05-10 | 1892-09-19 | 10.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 65(62) |
| 14350.0 | 1889-04-15 | 1892-09-19 | 20.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 87(79) |
| 14745.0 | 1890-05-15 | 1892-09-19 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 106(94) |
| 30280.16618 | 1895-07-01 | 1939-06-20 | 30.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 678 |
| 33534.32506 | 1938-12-31 | 1958-01-10 | 35.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 763 |
Legal record & documents
5 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA0511, CA0286, CA0922.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA0511 | 1 | 1958-01-10 | S |
CA0286 | 1 | 1939-06-20 | S |
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 4,392 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 586 AF — 13% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 5,284 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 73 | 75.0 |
| 2007 | 6,879 | 13th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 68 | 73.0 |
| 2008 | 5,325 | 12th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 71 | 76.0 |
| 2009 | 5,016 | 10th lowest of 15 · 114% of median | 101 | 82.0 |
| 2010 | 4,392 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 53 | 84.3 |
| 2012 | 4,903 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 99 | 60.1 |
| 2013 | 3,829 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 159 | 34.1 |
| 2014 | 6,908 | 14th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | 149 | 96.7 |
| 2015 | 3,118 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 62 | 42.3 |
| 2016 | 3,923 | 7th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | 47 | 76.5 |
| 2017 | 3,372 | 5th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 94 | 79.4 |
| 2018 | 3,149 | 4th lowest of 15 · 72% of median | 181 | 78.6 |
| 2019 | 9,264 | 15th lowest of 15 · 211% of median | 149 | 116.1 |
| 2024 | 2,221 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 51% of median | 27 | 43.1 |
| 2025 | 586 | 1st lowest of 15 · 13% of median | 22 | 14.1 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-213 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.010).
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 | 3957 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 25% of the irrigation seasons in 1950-2025 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.