Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CHAPSON AND HOWE DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2900560 · 1 · WEST FORK SAN JUAN RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:04 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 1890-10-31 — 100th most senior of the 853 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: FOUR-MILE DITCH (1890-10-15). Immediately behind: MESA DITCH (1891-01-12).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14914.0 | 1890-10-31 | 1904-08-17 | 3.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #59 |
| 17720.0 | 1898-07-07 | 1904-08-17 | 5.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #108 |
| 18900.0 | 1901-09-30 | 1904-08-17 | 4.5 | 0.0 | C | IRR | #128 |
| 41424.0 | 1963-06-01 | 1968-12-19 | 15.6 | 0.0 | C | IRRDOMSTK | 68-200 |
| 54266.0 | 1998-07-29 | 1998-12-31 | 17.5 | 0.0 | C | IRRRECFISFIRSTKOTH |
Legal record & documents
13 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
98CW0088, 10CW0071, CA0308-D, 84CW0108, CA0165.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
98CW0088 | 3 | 1998-12-31 | S |
10CW0071 | 3 | 1998-12-31 | S |
CA0308-D | 5 | 1968-12-19 | O, S |
84CW0108 | 1 | 1968-12-19 | S |
CA0165 | 1 | 1904-08-17 | 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 5,649 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,472 AF — 26% 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 | 8,024 | 12th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | — | 196 | 29.9 |
| 2012 | 9,354 | 14th lowest of 15 · 166% of median | — | 204 | 34.4 |
| 2013 | 7,398 | 10th lowest of 15 · 131% of median | — | 199 | 30.4 |
| 2014 | 6,220 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | — | 202 | 26.0 |
| 2015 | 5,129 | 5th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | — | 185 | 22.6 |
| 2016 | 5,649 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 173 | 22.8 |
| 2017 | 5,597 | 6th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | — | 182 | 24.1 |
| 2018 | 3,830 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 68% of median | — | 140 | 21.7 |
| 2019 | 4,876 | 4th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | — | 150 | 36.4 |
| 2020 | 7,520 | 11th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | — | 232 | 36.3 |
| 2021 | 11,273 | 15th lowest of 15 · 200% of median | — | 365 | 27.3 |
| 2022 | 8,848 | 13th lowest of 15 · 157% of median | — | 305 | 21.7 |
| 2023 | 4,189 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 74% of median | — | 168 | 21.7 |
| 2024 | 5,604 | 7th lowest of 15 · 99% of median | — | 185 | 22.3 |
| 2025 | 1,472 | 1st lowest of 15 · 26% of median | — | 149 | 12.0 |
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 | 5 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10914 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 83% of the irrigation seasons in 1964-2025 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.