Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DAVID M CHAPMAN DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 5700517 · 1 · TROUT CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:09 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 1888-05-11 — 28th most senior of the 1003 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: ENERGY WELL 6 (1888-05-01). Immediately behind: DAVID M CHAPMAN DITCH 2 (1888-05-11).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14011.0 | 1888-05-11 | 1892-09-22 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 28 |
| 18885.15127 | 1891-06-01 | 1902-09-15 | 2.66 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOM | 56 |
| 23544.21352 | 1908-06-17 | 1914-06-19 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 83B |
| 34139.31532 | 1936-05-01 | 1948-07-12 | 2.66 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 190 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
07/12/1948, W1223-77, 09/15/1902.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
07/12/1948 | 1 | 1948-07-12 | S |
W1223-77 | 2 | 1914-06-19 | O, S |
09/15/1902 | 1 | 1902-09-15 | 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 699 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 539 AF — 77% of that, and 4th 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 | 758 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 56 | 6.9 |
| 2012 | 498 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 71% of median | 90 | 5.0 |
| 2013 | 486 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 70% of median | 62 | 6.0 |
| 2014 | 568 | 6th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 57 | 7.4 |
| 2015 | 826 | 15th lowest of 15 · 118% of median | 85 | 9.2 |
| 2016 | 731 | 11th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 125 | 5.3 |
| 2017 | 543 | 5th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 94 | 5.5 |
| 2018 | 633 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 114 | 5.0 |
| 2019 | 325 | 1st lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 81 | 4.2 |
| 2020 | 770 | 14th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 73 | 8.0 |
| 2021 | 699 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 85 | 7.3 |
| 2022 | 705 | 10th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 73 | 7.3 |
| 2023 | 738 | 12th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | 59 | 8.2 |
| 2024 | 701 | 9th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 86 | 6.6 |
| 2025 | 539 | 4th lowest of 15 · 77% of median | 60 | 7.8 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 8918 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 46% of the irrigation seasons in 1934-2025 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.