Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
CLIFTON NORTH SIDE
Structure dossier · WDID 7200573 · 1 · PLATEAU CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-28 02:11 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (a1c9146) — 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 1931-10-10 — 476th most senior of the 2166 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: FRED DECAMP RESERVOIR (1931-06-29). Immediately behind: STUBB MCKINNEY CLARK FDR (1931-11-15).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30895.29867 | 1931-10-10 | 1941-07-25 | 0.39 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 34419.30902 | 1934-08-10 | 1959-07-21 | 0.468 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
CA8303, 06CW0256.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA8303 | 1 | 1959-07-21 | S |
06CW0256 | 2 | 1941-07-25 | 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 172 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 172 AF — 100% of that, and 8th 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 137 | 4th lowest of 15 · 80% of median | 135 | 1.0 |
| 2005 | 244 | 14th lowest of 15 · 142% of median | 160 | 1.0 |
| 2006 | 349 | 15th lowest of 15 · 203% of median | 191 | 1.0 |
| 2008 | 146 | 5th lowest of 15 · 85% of median | 158 | 0.6 |
| 2009 | 168 | 7th lowest of 15 · 98% of median | 130 | 0.8 |
| 2010 | 194 | 10th lowest of 15 · 113% of median | 164 | 0.8 |
| 2012 | 134 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 78% of median | 156 | 0.6 |
| 2013 | 129 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 75% of median | 150 | 0.8 |
| 2014 | 189 | 9th lowest of 15 · 110% of median | 132 | 0.9 |
| 2015 | 208 | 11th lowest of 15 · 121% of median | 159 | 0.8 |
| 2017 | 214 | 12th lowest of 15 · 124% of median | 154 | 0.9 |
| 2018 | 118 | 1st lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 159 | 0.4 |
| 2019 | 221 | 13th lowest of 15 · 128% of median | 161 | 0.8 |
| 2020 | 152 | 6th lowest of 15 · 88% of median | 101 | 1.0 |
| 2021 | 172 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 124 | 1.0 |
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 | 2 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 4682 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | patchy | 46% of the irrigation seasons in 1974-2021 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.