Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
HEADQUARTERS LAKE
Structure dossier · WDID 5703639 · 2 · 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 1998-09-30 — 781st 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: MCGUIRE STOCK WATER DIV (1998-08-21). Immediately behind: THAMES LAKE (1998-09-30).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54421.54329 | 1998-09-30 | 1999-12-31 | 3.1 | 0.0 | A | RECFISSTKEVPOTH | |
| 54421.54329 | 1998-09-30 | 1999-12-31 | 0.25 | 0.0 | C | RECFISSTKEVPOTH |
Legal record & documents
2 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
99CW0074.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
99CW0074 | 2 | 1999-12-31 | 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 11 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 773 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 431 AF — 56% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 11 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 0 | 1st lowest of 11 · 0% of median | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2012 | 952 | 7th lowest of 11 · 123% of median | 947 | 246 | 3.2 |
| 2013 | 1,028 | 9th lowest of 11 · 133% of median | 1,022 | 252 | 3.1 |
| 2014 | 613 | 3rd lowest of 11 · 79% of median | 608 | 261 | 2.5 |
| 2015 | 981 | 8th lowest of 11 · 127% of median | 976 | 225 | 2.5 |
| 2016 | 737 | 5th lowest of 11 · 95% of median | 737 | 172 | 2.7 |
| 2017 | 773 | 6th lowest of 11 · 100% of median | 768 | 173 | 2.5 |
| 2018 | 1,106 | 10th lowest of 11 · 143% of median | 1,103 | 186 | 4.0 |
| 2019 | 1,109 | 11th lowest of 11 · 144% of median | 1,109 | 325 | 2.4 |
| 2020 | 624 | 4th lowest of 11 · 81% of median | 624 | 361 | 3.8 |
| 2021 | 431 | 2nd lowest of 11 · 56% of median | 431 | 251 | 1.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 11 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade A (9/10 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2453 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 2011-2021 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.