Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHICAGO D
Structure dossier · WDID 2000575 · 1 · RIO GRANDE · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:39 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 1879-07-15 — 169th most senior of the 8016 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: BREENE MYERS D (1879-06-21). Immediately behind: EHROWITZ D (1879-08-31).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10788.0 | 1879-07-15 | 1896-05-01 | 23.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 174 |
| 11323.0 | 1880-12-31 | 1896-05-01 | 3.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 196 |
| 27138.0 | 1924-04-20 | 1934-10-15 | 40.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1934-14 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
10/15/1934, 05/01/1896.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
10/15/1934 | 1 | 1934-10-15 | S |
05/01/1896 | 2 | 1896-05-01 | 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 10,523 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 6,960 AF — 66% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 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 | 9,154 | 5th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | — | 218 | 32.5 |
| 2012 | 10,523 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 218 | 26.4 |
| 2013 | 9,324 | 6th lowest of 15 · 89% of median | — | 207 | 26.4 |
| 2014 | 9,050 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 203 | 26.7 |
| 2015 | 10,216 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | — | 275 | 26.9 |
| 2016 | 11,385 | 13th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | — | 366 | 36.5 |
| 2017 | 10,803 | 11th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | — | 365 | 42.9 |
| 2018 | 9,064 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 364 | 62.4 |
| 2019 | 12,479 | 14th lowest of 15 · 119% of median | — | 364 | 78.4 |
| 2020 | 10,976 | 12th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | — | 366 | 52.3 |
| 2021 | 7,253 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 69% of median | — | 365 | 31.7 |
| 2022 | 10,713 | 10th lowest of 15 · 102% of median | — | 365 | 35.6 |
| 2023 | 12,677 | 15th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 839 | 331 | 66.8 |
| 2024 | 10,660 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | — | 217 | 54.4 |
| 2025 | 6,960 | 1st lowest of 15 · 66% of median | — | 214 | 32.1 |
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 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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 15158 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 94% 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.