Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
STALKER LAKE
Structure dossier · WDID 6504498 · 3 · CHIEF CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:10 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 1954-06-24 — 85th most senior of the 112 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: BEHRENDSEN SPRING (1978-05-19). Immediately behind: WRAY HATCHERY PL (1955-05-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47481.3816 | 1954-06-24 | 1980-12-31 | 50.16 | 0.0 | A | RECFISOTH | |
| 47481.40581 | 1961-02-08 | 1980-12-31 | 93.04 | 0.0 | A | RECFISOTH | |
| 47481.42215 | 1965-07-31 | 1980-12-31 | 143.2 | 0.0 | A | RECFISOTH | |
| 50171.0 | 1987-05-13 | 2002-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | AUG | |
| 55882.0 | 2002-12-31 | 2002-12-31 | 0.0 | 70.0 | A | AUG |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
02CW0374, 80CW0281.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
02CW0374 | 4 | 2002-12-31 | O, S |
80CW0281 | 3 | 1980-12-31 | 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 12 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 9 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 9 AF — 100% of that, and 2nd lowest of the 12 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 214 | 0.0 |
| 2015 | 0 | 1st lowest of 12 · 0% of median | 4 | 0.0 |
| 2016 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 214 | 0.0 |
| 2017 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 214 | 0.0 |
| 2018 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 214 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 214 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 214 | 0.0 |
| 2021 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 215 | 0.0 |
| 2022 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 216 | 0.0 |
| 2023 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 215 | 0.0 |
| 2024 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 215 | 0.0 |
| 2025 | 9 | 2nd lowest of 12 · 100% of median | 215 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2364 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 88% of the irrigation seasons in 2013-2025 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.