Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
VIGIL & CHAVEZ DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 7900566 · 1 · HUERFANO RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 00:08 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 1866-05-01 — 15th most senior of the 930 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: MEYER DITCH (1866-05-01). Immediately behind: ROY DITCH (1866-05-01).
Decreed rights (8)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5965.0 | 1866-05-01 | 1889-06-12 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 14 |
| 5979.0 | 1866-05-15 | 1889-06-12 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 18 |
| 7106.0 | 1869-06-15 | 1889-06-12 | 2.4 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 36 |
| 7761.0 | 1871-04-01 | 1889-06-12 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 41 |
| 9588.0 | 1876-04-01 | 1889-06-12 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 63 |
| 13959.0 | 1888-03-20 | 1889-06-12 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 94 |
| 13959.0 | 1888-03-20 | 1889-06-12 | 0.9 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 95 |
| 14408.07761 | 1871-04-01 | 1898-02-23 | 2.12 | 0.0 | C | IRR | K-28 |
Legal record & documents
8 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
97CW0009, 06/12/1889, 03CW0054.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
97CW0009 | 4 | 1898-02-23 | O, S |
06/12/1889 | 3 | 1889-06-12 | O |
03CW0054 | 1 | 1889-06-12 | 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 413 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 1,368 AF — 331% of that, and 15th 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 | 10 | 4th lowest of 15 · 2% of median | — | 40 | 2.0 |
| 2012 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 33 | 0.0 |
| 2013 | 9 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 2% of median | — | 14 | 1.5 |
| 2014 | 689 | 13th lowest of 15 · 167% of median | — | 171 | 5.5 |
| 2015 | 629 | 12th lowest of 15 · 152% of median | — | 146 | 3.9 |
| 2016 | 417 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | — | 114 | 4.6 |
| 2017 | 755 | 14th lowest of 15 · 183% of median | — | 177 | 4.6 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | — | 45 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 498 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | — | 128 | 5.7 |
| 2020 | 15 | 5th lowest of 15 · 4% of median | — | 51 | 2.6 |
| 2021 | 438 | 10th lowest of 15 · 106% of median | — | 98 | 6.8 |
| 2022 | 162 | 6th lowest of 15 · 39% of median | — | 64 | 2.7 |
| 2023 | 413 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | — | 81 | 10.0 |
| 2024 | 284 | 7th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | — | 72 | 8.5 |
| 2025 | 1,368 | 15th lowest of 15 · 331% of median | — | 37 | 66.0 |
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 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 | 8 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6717 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1912-2025 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.