CLEAR CREEK RESERVOIR ☆ My Water

The record and the river

Where this structure is measured

A green link is DWR's own: either its telemetry inventory maps this WDID to that station, or the station is named for this WDID (0700553 → 0700553A). An amber one is ours — the station sits within 250 m and shares a distinctive word with this structure's name, which is a strong hint rather than a DWR statement that this gage meters this structure. Wrong? Tell us.

In short

CLEAR CREEK RESERVOIR holds 29 decreed rights on CLEAR CREEK. No active call senior to its rights reaches its district today (20 active calls checked), so it is in priority now. 17 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way. That is today's position; the weeks ahead cannot be projected for it: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it. In a median year over its last 12 recorded years it diverts 3,455 acre-feet. It was a party to 13 court cases that also touched 26 other structures.

Assembled from the figures on this page — every number above is checked against them before it is shown (7 checked). The detail, with its method, is in the cards below.

Dam safety

⚠ Under an active storage restriction from DWR’s Dam Safety branch.

The State Engineer limits what this dam may impound. DWR publishes no safe-storage figure for it. A low reading on this reservoir can be an order, not a drought; read any storage or fill figure on this page alongside it.

Source: DWR Dam Safety’s jurisdictional-dam inventory (damsafety/damsafetydaminfojd), refreshed weekly. DWR’s record for this dam carries no WDID and no matched NID id, so it is joined by name and position: “CLEAR CREEK” 0.041 mi away. More than half of Colorado’s jurisdictional dams can be reached no other way; judge the match before relying on it. Hazard class describes the consequence of failure, not the likelihood of it. DWR’s dam record.

Current administration

● In priority — no active call senior to this structure's rights affects its district (20 active call(s) checked).

17 further calls state no district and sit outside this one, so they are counted here rather than assumed either way.

Which of its rights are out of priority?

The outlook for the weeks ahead is not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it. Today’s position is a separate question, and it is answered in Current administration above — that screen reads the district’s active calls and needs no reference gage.

Where it sits in line

Priority 1881-03-10 — 164th most senior of the 1491 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: TWIN LAKES RESERVOIR (1881-03-10)☆. Immediately behind: PAINE DITCH (1881-03-15)☆.

Decreed rights (29)

Amounts marked cfs are flow rates; AF are stored volumes (storage rights are decreed in acre-feet). An absolute amount of 0.0 beside an alt-point amount is not a dead right: the water is decreed at another structure, and that row records permission to divert it here instead (an alternate point or exchange). A case listing several numbers reflects the original decree plus later change cases.

Legal record & documents

121 decreed actions on record across 27 court cases: 16CW3103, 11CW0081, 11CW0062, 09CW0142, 09CW0073, 04CW0130, 01CW0152, 99CW0170A, 87CW0063, 00CW0028 and 17 more below.

1146 imaged documents on DWR’s shelf for this structure — 1135 water-court documents across 53 cases, including 54 decrees. Every row opens the scanned PDF at DWR. Listing as of 2026-10-06.

Imaged documents at DWR. DWR keeps the scanned documents for this structure — decrees, rulings, plats, correspondence — in its Laserfiche archive. Open the list directly: imaged documents for 1103504 ↗ (indexed by structure, not by case — the cases listed above appear within the list).

Other DWR records for this structure: DWR’s page for this structure ↗ — net amounts, water rights, transactions & adjudication history, and diversion records, all on that one page. On this site: the district’s full legal picture →

Structures it shares court cases with

This structure was a party to 13 court cases that also touched 26 other structures — changes of water right, augmentation plans, exchanges. Being parties to the same case does not by itself mean water moved between them; which way it ran, and how much, is in the decree.

1 further shared case not shown — the most specific are listed first, since a case binding two structures says more than one binding a dozen.

Also a party to 1 omnibus adjudication (09CW0073, 15 structures). Those settled many rights at once and are listed separately: they say these structures were adjudicated together, not that they deal with each other.

Recorded use (last 13 years on record)

Years far under the decreed amount? That gap has a name — paper water vs. wet water, explained on this structure.

In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 3,455 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 223 AF — 6% of that, and 1st lowest of the 12 years with a recorded volume.

This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.

Trends for this structure

Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 12 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.

Every gage and reach in this district →

How good is our record of it?

Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.