Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ASHLEY PROFFIT D
Structure dossier · WDID 2600501 · 1 · SAGUACHE CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:50 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 1868-04-01 — 19th most senior of the 1548 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: RUSSELL D 4 (1867-05-23). Immediately behind: PROFFIT COMPANY D (1868-04-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6666.0 | 1868-04-01 | 1889-11-23 | 6.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 9 |
| 7439.0 | 1870-05-14 | 1889-11-23 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 17 |
| 8170.0 | 1872-05-14 | 1889-11-23 | 1.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 29 |
| 56247.0 | 2003-12-31 | 2003-12-31 | 2.0 | 0.0 | C | STOSTKRCH |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
03CW0005, W1742, CA1147, CA0821, 11/23/1889.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
03CW0005 | 1 | 2003-12-31 | S |
W1742 | 2 | 1889-11-23 | O |
CA1147 | 1 | 1889-11-23 | O |
CA0821 | 1 | 1889-11-23 | O |
11/23/1889 | 1 | 1889-11-23 | 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 1,996 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 2,330 AF — 117% of that, and 11th 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 | 1,996 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 249 | 7.8 |
| 2012 | 973 | 1st lowest of 15 · 49% of median | 224 | 6.6 |
| 2013 | 1,709 | 5th lowest of 15 · 86% of median | 248 | 7.8 |
| 2014 | 1,857 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 249 | 7.8 |
| 2015 | 1,789 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 200 | 9.0 |
| 2016 | 2,823 | 13th lowest of 15 · 141% of median | 295 | 9.0 |
| 2017 | 3,076 | 14th lowest of 15 · 154% of median | 316 | 9.0 |
| 2018 | 1,577 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 310 | 6.6 |
| 2019 | 2,659 | 12th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 312 | 9.0 |
| 2020 | 2,197 | 10th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 358 | 7.6 |
| 2021 | 2,048 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 306 | 7.6 |
| 2022 | 3,261 | 15th lowest of 15 · 163% of median | 334 | 11.0 |
| 2023 | 1,665 | 4th lowest of 15 · 83% of median | 158 | 8.8 |
| 2024 | 1,492 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 269 | 8.8 |
| 2025 | 2,330 | 11th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 304 | 8.0 |
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 | 4 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 16289 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% 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.