Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
SADDLE MT HIGHLINE D
Structure dossier · WDID 4000502 · 1 · SMITH FORK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:31 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 1897-05-01 — 633rd most senior of the 4661 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: SCRUB OAK DITCH NO 1 (1896-03-31). Immediately behind: REEDER DITCH NO 3 (1898-05-01).
Decreed rights (7)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19413.17288 | 1897-05-01 | 1903-02-27 | 0.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 34 |
| 21263.18788 | 1901-06-10 | 1914-06-23 | 8.125 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A67 |
| 21757.0 | 1909-07-27 | 1914-06-23 | 10.625 | 0.0 | C | IRR | A112 |
| 25807.21762 | 1909-08-01 | 1930-02-10 | 20.37 | 0.0 | C | IRR | G59 |
| 31924.18788 | 1901-06-10 | 1954-03-20 | 4.0 | 0.0 | C | DOMSTK | J86 |
| 31924.29275 | 1930-02-25 | 1954-03-20 | 40.0 | 0.0 | C | IRR | J195 |
| 41410.0 | 1963-05-18 | 2005-12-31 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRSTK |
Legal record & documents
7 decreed actions on record across
5 court cases:
05CW0109, CA3503, CA2030, CA0617, W0254.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
05CW0109 | 1 | 2005-12-31 | O |
CA3503 | 2 | 1954-03-20 | S |
CA2030 | 1 | 1930-02-10 | S |
CA0617 | 2 | 1914-06-23 | S |
W0254 | 1 | 1903-02-27 | S |
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 3,249 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 3,120 AF — 96% of that, and 7th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 3,249 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 112 | 39.0 |
| 2011 | 3,962 | 13th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 133 | 35.0 |
| 2012 | 1,426 | 4th lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 74 | 21.1 |
| 2013 | 2,938 | 6th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 104 | 38.0 |
| 2014 | 3,376 | 9th lowest of 15 · 104% of median | 129 | 39.8 |
| 2015 | 3,944 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 135 | 39.5 |
| 2016 | 3,421 | 10th lowest of 15 · 105% of median | 116 | 42.0 |
| 2017 | 3,948 | 12th lowest of 15 · 122% of median | 109 | 40.0 |
| 2018 | 673 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 25 | 21.1 |
| 2019 | 7,662 | 15th lowest of 15 · 236% of median | 128 | 69.0 |
| 2020 | 1,509 | 5th lowest of 15 · 46% of median | 55 | 24.8 |
| 2021 | 471 | 1st lowest of 15 · 14% of median | 26 | 19.6 |
| 2022 | 1,414 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 44% of median | 36 | 37.8 |
| 2023 | 4,314 | 14th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 103 | 39.0 |
| 2024 | 3,120 | 7th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 102 | 40.0 |
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 (8/10 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 | 7 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6380 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 55% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2024 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.