In all civil actions, special proceedings, or other modes of litigation before a water judge or referee having power to receive evidence, all records, reports, tables, and other documents of division engineers and water commissioners of the state of Colorado and all records, streamflow tables, rating curves, automatic water register sheets, and special reports of the state engineer and his deputies, hydrographers, and employees, and of the division engineers of the several divisions, and all records of canal headgate keepers, reservoir outlet keepers, gauge readers, and other systematically compiled records or reports of diversions, storage, and discharge of waters or of the flows of streams on file in or constituting a part of the records and files of the state engineer of the state of Colorado, and all copies duly certified as correct by the state engineer or his deputy shall be admitted as evidence of the facts contained therein.
Source: L. 21: p. 309, § 1. C.L. § 6552. CSA: C. 63, § 18. CRS 53: § 52-1-17. C.R.S. 1963: § 52-1-17.
ANNOTATION
Water commissioners' reports will be assumed by an appellate court to be properly verified. Where portions of water commissioners' reports are admitted in evidence, it will be assumed on review, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they were properly verified where such verification is required by statute. Commonwealth Irrigation Co. v. Rio Grande Canal Water Users Ass'n, 96 Colo. 478, 45 P.2d 622 (1935).
An objection to their admissibility cannot first be made on appeal. A party may not successfully urge an objection to the admission in evidence of water commissioners' reports on the ground that they were not sworn to, where the question is raised for the first time in the reviewing court. Commonwealth Irrigation Co. v. Rio Grande Canal Water Users Ass'n, 96 Colo. 478, 45 P. 2d 622 (1935).
The water court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the state's water records into evidence despite fact the state failed to furnish copies to the owner of the water rights within time specified in the pretrial order, when reason for the delay was explained, the exhibit was matter of public record, and additional time to respond was given. Masters Inv. Co. v. Irrigationists Ass'n, 702 P.2d 268 (Colo. 1985).