Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
J L SCHWAB DITCH 1 ANTE
Structure dossier · WDID 1300923 · 1 · ANTELOPE 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 (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 1872-06-10 — 80th most senior of the 1017 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: R KITZMAN DITCH NO 1 (1872-06-01). Immediately behind: JOHN MEYER DITCH NO 1 (1872-06-10).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8197.0 | 1872-06-10 | 1896-03-12 | 0.1572 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 299, 45 |
| 11475.0 | 1881-06-01 | 1896-03-12 | 0.4962 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 299 |
Legal record & documents
16 decreed actions on record across
8 court cases:
W4062, 85CW0011, 84CW0014, 84CW0004, 81CW0135, 80CW0009, 79CW0152, 03/12/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
W4062 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
85CW0011 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
84CW0014 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
84CW0004 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
81CW0135 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
80CW0009 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
79CW0152 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | O |
03/12/1896 | 2 | 1896-03-12 | 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 56 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 62 AF — 112% of that, and 9th lowest of the 14 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | — | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2003 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 0 | 2 | 0.0 |
| 2004 | 0 | 1st lowest of 14 · 0% of median | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| 2005 | 157 | 12th lowest of 14 · 283% of median | 207 | 105 | 0.9 |
| 2006 | 201 | 14th lowest of 14 · 362% of median | 105 | 183 | 1.1 |
| 2007 | 57 | 8th lowest of 14 · 103% of median | 506 | 111 | 0.6 |
| 2008 | — | no recorded volume | 330 | 0 | — |
| 2009 | 162 | 13th lowest of 14 · 292% of median | — | 179 | 1.8 |
| 2010 | 37 | 4th lowest of 14 · 67% of median | 250 | 27 | 1.7 |
| 2012 | 68 | 10th lowest of 14 · 122% of median | — | 102 | 0.5 |
| 2017 | 153 | 11th lowest of 14 · 276% of median | — | 80 | 3.4 |
| 2018 | 54 | 7th lowest of 14 · 97% of median | — | 50 | 1.0 |
| 2019 | 40 | 5th lowest of 14 · 72% of median | — | 124 | 0.6 |
| 2020 | 48 | 6th lowest of 14 · 86% of median | — | 124 | 0.6 |
| 2021 | 62 | 9th lowest of 14 · 112% of median | — | 111 | 0.6 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 14 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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 2728 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 13% of the irrigation seasons in 1926-2021 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.