Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
FLORENCE ADOBE CREEK PL
Structure dossier · WDID 1200830 · 1 · ADOBE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 01:22 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 1866-05-31 — 50th most senior of the 1967 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: ADAM STUDT DITCH NO 1 (1866-03-31). Immediately behind: FLORENCE MINERAL CRK PL (1866-05-31).
Decreed rights (4)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5995.0 | 1866-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 33 |
| 6360.0 | 1867-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 34 |
| 7456.0 | 1870-05-31 | 1894-02-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 54 |
| 7578.0 | 1870-09-30 | 1894-02-03 | 0.5 | 0.0 | C | MUN | 59 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
1 court case:
80CW0093.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
80CW0093 | 4 | 1894-02-03 | 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 70 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 285 AF — 407% of that, and 15th lowest of the 15 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 15 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 68 | 0.6 |
| 2012 | 47 | 4th lowest of 15 · 67% of median | 93 | 1.0 |
| 2013 | 11 | 1st lowest of 15 · 16% of median | 152 | 0.2 |
| 2014 | 70 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 306 | 1.1 |
| 2015 | 61 | 6th lowest of 15 · 87% of median | 272 | 1.4 |
| 2016 | 71 | 9th lowest of 15 · 101% of median | 182 | 1.2 |
| 2017 | 64 | 7th lowest of 15 · 91% of median | 272 | 0.5 |
| 2018 | 20 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 29% of median | 110 | 0.2 |
| 2019 | 169 | 11th lowest of 15 · 241% of median | 182 | 1.9 |
| 2020 | 57 | 5th lowest of 15 · 81% of median | 227 | 0.4 |
| 2021 | 192 | 13th lowest of 15 · 274% of median | 340 | 1.8 |
| 2022 | 179 | 12th lowest of 15 · 256% of median | 262 | 1.2 |
| 2023 | 149 | 10th lowest of 15 · 213% of median | 181 | 1.4 |
| 2024 | 266 | 14th lowest of 15 · 380% of median | 264 | 1.8 |
| 2025 | 285 | 15th lowest of 15 · 407% of median | 292 | 2.4 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is rising over its last 15 recorded years (+18 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.001).
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 12703 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2025 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.