Opinion ID: 1363217
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Removal of Trees From Stream

Text: The applicants argue that the trial court lacked authority to require them to remove certain fallen trees which alter the course of the stream just above the headgate of Ditch No. 2. The basis for this contention is that the issue was not raised until trial and that in any event the evidence does not support the conclusion that the applicants are responsible for the location of the trees. On the contrary, our review of the record reflects that the issue was tried by consent, see C.R.C.P. 15(b), in that the applicants permitted evidence to be presented without objection, cross-examined witnesses on the point, and introduced evidence of their own relating to this issue. The ruling of the trial court is supported by the evidence and so will not be disturbed by us. E.g., Peterson v. Ground Water Commission, 195 Colo. 508, 579 P.2d 629 (1978). The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, including the taking of additional evidence in the discretion of the water judge, consistent with the views expressed in this opinion. HODGES, C.J., does not participate.