Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
DUNLAP NO 1 D (PLATEAU)
Structure dossier · WDID 7200605 · 1 · PLATEAU CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 23:15 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 1883-03-01 — 2nd 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: BULL CREEK DITCH (1882-12-31). Immediately behind: ROCKWELL DITCH (1883-07-01).
Decreed rights (6)
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12113.0 | 1883-03-01 | 1890-02-07 | 0.11 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 17 |
| 12905.0 | 1885-05-01 | 1890-02-07 | 0.2 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 29 |
| 18749.15462 | 1892-05-01 | 1905-10-14 | 0.3 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 30895.12127 | 1883-03-15 | 1941-07-25 | 1.0 | 0.0 | C | DOM | |
| 30895.29865 | 1931-10-08 | 1941-07-25 | 1.48 | 0.0 | C | IRR | |
| 32811.0 | 1939-11-01 | 1941-07-25 | 0.27 | 0.0 | C | IRR |
Legal record & documents
6 decreed actions on record across
3 court cases:
CA5812, CA1222, CA0273.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
CA5812 | 3 | 1941-07-25 | S |
CA1222 | 1 | 1905-10-14 | S |
CA0273 | 2 | 1890-02-07 | 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 421 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2021, came in at 112 AF — 27% 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 289 | 4th lowest of 15 · 69% of median | 185 | 1.8 |
| 2007 | 405 | 6th lowest of 15 · 96% of median | 141 | 4.0 |
| 2008 | 707 | 11th lowest of 15 · 168% of median | 156 | 3.5 |
| 2009 | 758 | 12th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 149 | 4.0 |
| 2010 | 781 | 14th lowest of 15 · 186% of median | 122 | 4.0 |
| 2012 | 453 | 10th lowest of 15 · 108% of median | 132 | 3.5 |
| 2013 | 421 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 214 | 1.8 |
| 2014 | 758 | 12th lowest of 15 · 180% of median | 365 | 2.4 |
| 2015 | 862 | 15th lowest of 15 · 205% of median | 304 | 3.5 |
| 2016 | 378 | 5th lowest of 15 · 90% of median | 161 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | 254 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 60% of median | 147 | 1.8 |
| 2018 | 421 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 349 | 2.0 |
| 2019 | 409 | 7th lowest of 15 · 97% of median | 285 | 2.3 |
| 2020 | 155 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 37% of median | 179 | 1.0 |
| 2021 | 112 | 1st lowest of 15 · 27% of median | 149 | 1.2 |
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 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 | 6 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 9983 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | continuous | 90% of the irrigation seasons in 1970-2021 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.