Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
NORTH STERLING RES
Structure dossier · WDID 6403551 · 3 · SOUTH PLATTE RIVER · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:58 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 1908-06-15 — 139th most senior of the 2052 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: MCCLARY WELL 2 (1908-05-01). Immediately behind: BANGSTON BOLLEN DITCH (1908-08-01).
Decreed rights (3)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 21350.0 | 1908-06-15 | 1914-01-15 | 69446.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRMUNCOMINDRECFISFIRDOMSTKAUG | |
| 23172.2135 | 1908-06-15 | 1928-07-05 | 7000.0 | 0.0 | A | STOIRR | |
| 26302.23953 | 1915-08-01 | 1936-01-13 | 11954.0 | 0.0 | A | IRRRECFISWLD |
Legal record & documents
10 decreed actions on record across
4 court cases:
CA2142, 88CW0234, CA0944, 96CW1034.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA2142 | 2 | 1936-01-13 | S |
88CW0234 | 4 | 1936-01-13 | S |
CA0944 | 2 | 1928-07-05 | S |
96CW1034 | 2 | 1914-01-15 | 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 69,032 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2024, came in at 14,754 AF — 21% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
This structure records both diversions and reservoir releases — they are separate water movements and are accounted separately below.
| 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 | Released (AF) | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 96,645 | 13th lowest of 15 · 140% of median | 63,061 | 253 | 625.0 |
| 2011 | 69,032 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 38,241 | 191 | 414.0 |
| 2012 | 37,200 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 54% of median | 65,019 | 102 | 312.0 |
| 2013 | 82,714 | 11th lowest of 15 · 120% of median | 68,967 | 189 | 429.5 |
| 2014 | 60,835 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 41,420 | 220 | 364.0 |
| 2015 | 51,522 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 70,589 | 133 | 487.3 |
| 2016 | 54,667 | 5th lowest of 15 · 79% of median | 62,342 | 176 | 369.0 |
| 2017 | 77,564 | 10th lowest of 15 · 112% of median | 64,807 | 243 | 387.9 |
| 2018 | 63,962 | 7th lowest of 15 · 93% of median | 65,860 | 226 | 363.0 |
| 2019 | 70,879 | 9th lowest of 15 · 103% of median | 53,626 | 183 | 384.0 |
| 2020 | 54,168 | 4th lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 70,298 | 172 | 401.0 |
| 2021 | 92,173 | 12th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 79,788 | 177 | 523.0 |
| 2022 | 124,894 | 14th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 74,669 | 235 | 507.0 |
| 2023 | 125,237 | 15th lowest of 15 · 181% of median | 55,240 | 365 | 381.0 |
| 2024 | 14,754 | 1st lowest of 15 · 21% of median | 66,180 | 277 | 304.0 |
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 | 3 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 6425 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 67% of the irrigation seasons in 1980-2024 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.