Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
RIFLE TOWN INTAKE PL
Structure dossier · WDID 4500739 · 1 · BEAVER CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:21 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 1883-03-30 — 11th most senior of the 1378 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: HILL DITCH (1883-03-30). Immediately behind: CLAUSEN DITCH SAVAGE AP (1883-03-30).
Decreed rights (2)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12142.0 | 1883-03-30 | 1888-05-05 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | IRRMUN | 18 |
| 37681.31563 | 1936-06-01 | 1965-07-09 | 0.0 | 0.0 | C | MUNDOM | 241 |
Legal record & documents
4 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
81CW0173, CA0089, 79CW0091.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
81CW0173 | 1 | 1965-07-09 | S |
CA0089 | 2 | 1888-05-05 | O |
79CW0091 | 1 | 1888-05-05 | 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 277 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2020, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 469 | 15th lowest of 15 · 169% of median | 366 | 1.0 |
| 2001 | 398 | 14th lowest of 15 · 144% of median | 358 | 1.0 |
| 2002 | 393 | 13th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 362 | 15.0 |
| 2003 | 355 | 11th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 302 | 1.0 |
| 2004 | 325 | 10th lowest of 15 · 117% of median | 306 | 2.6 |
| 2005 | 236 | 7th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 337 | 3.1 |
| 2006 | 367 | 12th lowest of 15 · 132% of median | 302 | 1.1 |
| 2013 | 57 | 5th lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 61 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 277 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 304 | 2.4 |
| 2015 | 55 | 4th lowest of 15 · 20% of median | 61 | 0.6 |
| 2016 | 311 | 9th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 366 | 0.9 |
| 2017 | 169 | 6th lowest of 15 · 61% of median | 365 | 0.6 |
| 2018 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 304 | 0.0 |
| 2019 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 61 | 0.0 |
| 2020 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 304 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use is falling over its last 15 recorded years (-22 AF/yr, Mann-Kendall p=0.000).
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 10568 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 100% of the irrigation seasons in 1975-2020 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.