Title: Purcell v. Parker
Citation: 2020 OK 83
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: October 6, 2020

Purcell v. Parker Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Petitioners and respondents owned real property in McClain County, Oklahoma, containing and abutting Colbert Lake (the Lake). Petitioners also owned real property containing Colbert Creek, which was the sole source of water that fed the Lake. Respondents sought a permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), to sell water from the Lake to oil companies for use in fracking operations. The only notice that the OWRB provided to petitioners of the respondents' permit application was by publication in newspapers. The permits were issued, and petitioners subsequently filed suit at the district court, arguing that they were not given proper and sufficient notice of the permit proceedings. The district court dismissed the lawsuit in a certified interlocutory order, and petitioners appealed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the proper, constitutionally required notice to landowners in such proceedings. The Court held that the notice given was inadequate, therefore judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for for further proceedings. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . PURCELL v. PARKER 2020 OK 83 Case Number: 118328 Decided: 10/06/2020 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. BETTY SUE ADAMS PURCELL; GILBERT LYNN PURCELL, JR.; SUSAN DENISE PURCELL PERINE; TWILA JUNE ADAMS MILLER; and BECKY LYNN MILLER CONTI, Petitioners/Appellants, v. TODD A. PARKER, and JESSICA D. PARKER, husband and wife; STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel. OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD, CASILLAS OPERATING, LLC.; and SELECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC. Respondents/Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE MCCLAIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT Honorable Charles Grey, Trial Judge ¶0 The petitioners and respondents own real property in McClain County, Oklahoma, containing and abutting Colbert Lake (the Lake). The petitioners also own real property containing Colbert Creek, which is the sole source of water that feeds the Lake. The respondents sought a permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), to sell water from the Lake to oil companies for use in fracking operations. The only notice that the OWRB provided to the petitioners of the respondents' permit application was by publication in newspapers. The permits were issued, and the petitioners subsequently sought relief in the District Court of McClain County, arguing that they were not given proper and sufficient notice of the permit proceedings. The District Court dismissed the lawsuit in a certified interlocutory order, and the petitioners appealed. We granted certiorari to address the proper, constitutionally required notice to landowners in such proceedings. We hold that the notice given was inadequate, and the cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with our holding. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT DENIED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. Phillip O. Watts, Beverly Q. Watts, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Petitioners Miller and Conti. Travis A. Pickens, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioners, the Purcells. Jonathan Allen, Sara Gibson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents, OWRB. Kaylee P. Davis-Maddy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents, the Parkers. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 We granted review of the certified interlocutory order to address whether the notice by publication provisions of 82 O.S. 2011 §105.111 which relate to stream water permits are constitutionally adequate when applied to an affected landowner whose name and address are known or easily discoverable. We hold that the notice by publication provisions are constitutionally inadequate when applied to a known or easily discoverable landowner. ALLEGED FACTS/PROCEDURAL POSTURE ¶2 The petitioners/appellants, Susan Purcell, Susan Pernine, Gilbert Purcell, June Miller, and Becky Conti (collectively petitioners/landowners/Purcells), and the respondents/appellees, Todd A. Parker and Jessica D. Parker (respondents/Parkers), own interests in real property in McClain County, Oklahoma. In the1950's, the landowners, and the Parkers, and/or their predecessors, granted land to the United States National Resources Conservation Service to create Colbert Lake (the Lake). ¶3 Both the petitioners' and respondents' real property currently contains and/or abuts the Lake. The Lake provides a water source for fire fighting, drinking water for livestock, and recreational pleasure for area residents. The approximately 270 acre farm owned by the petitioners' also contains Colbert Creek, the sole water source feeding the Lake. ¶4 On May 10, 2017, the Parkers entered into a "Right of Entry and Purchase Access" agreement (the Agreement) with Select Energy Services (Select), allowing Select, or their appointed representatives, the right of entry and the right of access to their real property for the purpose of water transfer from the Lake for Select's drilling/fracking operations. The use of the water was to commence on June 12, 2017. ¶5 Subsequently, Select applied for a provisional temporary permit (temporary permit)2 from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (the OWRB) to divert water from the Lake. On May 15, 2017, the OWRB issued a provisional temporary permit to Select without actual notice to the petitioners. The permit, in the amount of 81 Acre-Feet, allowed the diversion of 3200 gallons per minute from a Diversion Point located on the Lake for the purpose of oil, and gas drilling, and mining. ¶6 Subsequently, the Parkers applied for a long-term surface and stream water permit (Stream permit) to withdraw water from the Lake.3 Although the petitioners' family had lived in the area for decades and were known by the Parkers, the Parkers provided the landowners notice by publication as required by 82 O.S. 2011 §105.11.4 Because the petitioners did not timely protest, the OWRB did not hold a hearing/individual proceeding regarding the Parkers' permit application.5 ¶7 On June 20, 2017, the OWRB issued to the Parkers the stream water permit authorizing the taking and use of 109 Acre-Feet of water per calendar year, at a rate not to exceed 3,360 gallons per minute. Although the petitioners did not receive actual notice of the permit applications, the stream water permit was issued after an OWRB meeting in which the petitioners apparently discovered and were given five minutes to comment. ¶8 On July 20, 2017, the petitioners filed a petition in the District Court of McClain County. The first claim of relief the petitioners sought was a declaratory judgment determining the stream use permit invalid based upon publication notice and insufficient actual notice to the petitioners. The second claim for relief was a declaratory judgment to nullify the temporary permit for lack of notice to the petitioners. The third and forth claims for relief were for judicial review of the stream permit and an accounting. On October 16, 2017, the petitioners added claims for conversion and unjust enrichment. ¶9 On December 14, 2018, the trial court entered a summary order denying judicial review of the OSWB proceedings, and also denying the constitutional challenges to the petitioners' notice pursuant to 82 O.S. 2011 §105.11.6 On September 17, 2019, the trial court certified its summary order for interlocutory appeal. On February 10, 2020, we granted the landowners' petition for certiorari to review the certified interlocutory order to address the notice issue. The briefing cycle was completed on June 23, 2020. On June 30, 2020, the petitioners requested oral argument before the Court, which we hereby deny. ¶10 THE NOTICE BY PUBLICATION PROVISIONS OF 82 O.S.2011 §105.11 WHICH RELATE TO STREAM WATER PERMITS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY INADEQUATE WHEN THE AFFECTED LANDOWNERS ARE KNOWN OR READILY DISCOVERABLE. ¶11 The petitioners challenge the notice by publication process as it relates to the issuance of stream water permits. The respondents argue that the petitioners have no right to judicial review because no final agency order7 was ever entered, and even if the petitioners had a right to review, the permit process is free from any prejudicial error. A. The Permit Process Involved In This Cause. ¶12 This cause concerns the question of sufficiency of the notice constitutionally required for permit applications for the appropriation and use of stream water. The term "stream water" includes lakes and reservoirs.8 Appropriation of stream water is governed by the process set forth in 82 O.S. 2011 §§105 et. seq.9 The Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC), Title 785, Chapter 20, sets forth the guidelines for stream water permits to allow appropriation and use.10 The statute and Administrative Code work together to govern the stream water permit process and proceedings. ¶13 The OAC states that notice of the filing of an application for the appropriation and use of stream water "shall be provided by the applicant as required by law and Board instructions."11 Title 82 O.S. 2011 §105.11 requires notice by publication in a newspaper in the county in which the land is located and adjacent downstream counties, regardless of whether landowners or interested parties are actually known or easily discoverable. It states: A. Except as otherwise provided by Section 105.13 of this title for limited quantity stream water permits, upon the acceptance of an application which complies with the provisions of Chapter 1 of this title, and the rules promulgated by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board pursuant thereto, the Board shall instruct the applicant to publish, within the time required by the Board, a notice thereof, at the applicant's expense, in a form prescribed by the Board in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of the point of diversion, and in a newspaper of general circulation published within the adjacent downstream county and any other counties designated by the Board once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks. Such notice shall give all the essential facts as to the proposed appropriation, among them being the places of appropriation and of use, amount of water, the purpose for which it is to be used, name and address of applicant, the hearing date, time and place if a hearing is scheduled by the Board before instructions to publish notice are given, and a thirty-day protest period as well as the manner in which a protest to the application may be made. At the time the Board provides the notice of application to the applicant, the Board shall publish on its website the applications and instructions for public notice, including the draft public notice prepared by the Board. The website publishing is in addition to, and not in lieu of, the requirement for applicants to publish notice in the newspaper. The time to protest shall run from the date of the first newspaper publication. It required the OWRB to publish notice on their website in addition to publication in newspapers, it also gave any interested party the right to protest any application and appear and present evidence and testimony in support of such protest at the hearing thereon.12 ¶14 Our decision today is limited to the issue of notice. This is not an administrative appeal of an individual proceeding,13 nor an appeal from an administrative agency's final order.14 Nor do we address the merits of the petitioner's protest, as it relates to whether the OWRB's decision regarding the granting of the permit was within its authority, and/or appropriate. Rather, this is a declaratory judgment action to address whether 82 O.S. 2011 §105.11,15 and the rules of the OWRB in conjunction therewith, are constitutionally sufficient.16 The issue is whether the notice by publication permit process was free from prejudicial error. If it is not, the permits granted thereunder are invalidated. B. Inadequacy Of Notice By Publication When Landowners Are Known Or Easily Discoverable. ¶15 Title 82 O.S. 2011 §105.11 requires notice by publication in a newspaper in the county in which the land is located and adjacent downstream counties.17 Undisputedly, the statutory procedure was followed in this cause. However, in Cate v. Archon Oil Co., Inc., 1985 OK 15, 695 P. 2S 1352, we addressed the constitutionality afforded pre-procedural due process required when an oil and gas lease of real property is being sold at a sheriff's sale. The dispositive issue was not whether the statutory procedure was properly followed, but rather whether the procedure accorded with fundamental notions of due process. ¶16 The statute at issue in Cate, supra, was much like the statute at issue in this cause. It only required notice by publication. There, we recognized that notice by publication postings are designed primarily to attract prospective purchasers, and are unlikely to reach those who have an interest in the property. If the actual whereabouts of the parties are known, failure to afford personal notice to those who have an interest or estate in real property sought to be sold in satisfaction of a judgment, results in an unconstitutional exercise of jurisdiction insofar as the interest of the owner is affected.18 ¶17 With regard to notice by publication we said: ¶8 Theoretically, publication may be available for all the world to see, but it is presumptuous to suppose that anyone could read all that is published to see if something may be reported which affects his/her property interest. Exclusive reliance on an inefficacious means of notification cannot be permitted . . . neither necessity nor efficiency can abrogate the rule that, within the limits of practicability, notice must be reasonably calculated to reach the interested parties. If the names of those affected by a proceeding are available, the reasons disappear for resorting to means less likely than the mails to apprise them of the pending sale. Mail service can be utilized as an inexpensive and efficient mechanism to enhance the reliability of the otherwise unreliable procedure of notice by publication. . . . ¶10 Notice is a jurisdictional requirement as well as a fundamental element of due process. Due process requires adequate notice, a realistic opportunity to appear at a hearing or judicial sale, and the right to participate in a meaningful manner before one's rights are irretrievably altered. The right to be heard is of little value unless adequate notice is given. Due process is violated by the mere act of exercising judicial power upon process not reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of an action, and lack of notice constitutes a jurisdictional infirmity. (Citations omitted) ¶18 In Dulaney v. Okla. State Dept. of Health, 1993 OK 113, 868 P.2d 676 , we addressed notice and the opportunity for an individual proceeding in the context of a landfill permit. Dulaney involved an applicant for a landfill permit from the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Landowners who owned real property and mineral interests adjacent to the application site, requested an evidentiary hearing which the Health Department denied before issuing the permit. The Landowners filed a lawsuit challenging the applicable administrative rules and statutes. ¶19 The permit applicant and Health Department argued that the Landowners had no statutory or constitutional right to notice or an opportunity to be heard. We held that minimum standards of due process require that administrative proceedings, which may directly and adversely affect legally protected interests, be preceded by notice calculated to provide knowledge of the exercise of adjudicative power and an opportunity to be heard. We also stated that: ¶18 Even if we were not convinced that adjacent landowners had constitutional rights sufficient to require the application of due process, we would be constrained to hold that, under the facts presented, these landowners are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Water rights are property which are an important part of the landowners' "bundle of sticks." The use and control of fresh water is a matter of publici juris, and of immediate local, national, and international concern. No commodity affects and concerns the citizens of Oklahoma more than fresh groundwater. Here, evidence was presented that drilling operations, which the mineral interest owners are entitled to engage in on the landfill site, could potentially contaminate the ground water supply - the same supply underlying the adjacent landowners' property and which they use for drinking purposes. It is a problem which must be explained. These landowners' water-related property interest alone requires that they be given notice and an opportunity to participate in a hearing whose outcome could affect their constitutionally protected rights. It would be incongruous to protect oil and gas interests and to ignore the protection of fresh water. If we continue to do so, the price of a barrel of water will exceed the price of a barrel of oil. [This has happened before. See R. Kerr, Land, Wood & Water, Ch. 3, p. 44 (Fleet Publishing Co. 1960).] While the appropriation and use of water in this cause may or may not involve potentially contaminating the ground water supply, the same principles still apply and the same "bundle of sticks" exist as to the petitioners in this cause. Accordingly, notice must be reasonably calculated to provide knowledge of the existence of an adjudicative power and an opportunity to be heard. ¶20 To meet the statutory requirements for notice by publication of 82 O.S. 2011 §105.11, the newspaper must qualify as a legal publication.19 Apparently, the notice by publication was given by publication in the Purcell Register. It has a circulation of 2,900.20 McClain County, in which the petitioners reside, has a population of 39,985.21 That means that there was a 7% chance that it might provide notice to interested parties in McClain County. ¶21 Section 105.11 also requires that publication be made in adjacent downstream counties. Assuming that was Garvin County, the population of Garvin County is 27,811.22 There are four legal newspapers in Garvin County, The Wynnewood Gazette, the Pauls Valley Democrat, the Garvin County News Star, and the Lindsey News.23 The newspapers have a total estimated circulation of 8800.24 That means that there was a 31.64% chance that notice would be provided to all interested parties if they read all four newspapers. Regardless of the best possible scenario, i.e., combining the circulation to all the possible newspapers, the chances of an affected party receiving notice is less than 40%. With a less than 40% chance of seeing the notice in the newspaper, what would that chance be that a landowner would see the notice published on the OWRB's website? How would the landowner even know to check the website for such notice? ¶22 In Harvey R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum, 1986 OK 16, 732 P.2d 432, a case involving standards of adequate notice in spacing proceedings before the Corporation Commission, we said, concerning notice by publication, that: ¶13 Publication notice is not reasonably calculated to provide actual knowledge of instituted proceedings. It is hence inadequate as a method to inform those who could be notified by more effective means such as personal service or mailed notice. Mail service is an inexpensive and far more efficient mechanism to enhance the reliability of notice than either publication or posting. When a party's name and address are reasonably ascertainable from sources available at hand, communication by mail or other means certain to insure actual notice is deemed to be a constitutional prerequisite in every proceeding which affects either a person's liberty or property interests. ¶14 Because resort to publication service is constitutionally permissible only when all other means of giving notice are unavailable, we hold today that the face of an administrative proceeding must affirmatively show a diligent but unsuccessful effort to reach the affected party by better process. In short, courts may not presume publication service alone to be constitutionally valid when the judgment roll or record of an administrative proceeding fails to show that the means of imparting better notice were diligently pursued but proved unavailable. (Citations omittted), (Emphasis added) ¶23 Since Cate, Dulaney, and Carlile, supra, were promulgated, notice by publication has become even less effective. In Oklahoma, statewide daily newspaper circulation dramatically declined in 2019 when The Oklahoman, citing economic realities, further dropped delivery of 7000 subscribers and 3500 retail outlets, narrowing its previously confined 150 mile radius from Oklahoma City.25 Even with the decline in newspaper circulation, if a landowner does not see the notice in the newspaper they are expected to know to regularly check the OWRB website in case their property is involved in the permit process. CONCLUSION ¶24 Pursuant to Cate, Dulaney, and Carlile, supra, if the affected landowners are known, or reasonably discoverable, notice provided by publication results in an unconstitutional exercise of jurisdiction and a denial of due process. There is no excuse for failing to give personal notice of something that directly affects landowners when such landowners are known or easily discoverable.26 Instead, 82 O.S. 2011 §105.1127 ignores the precedents of this Court and the United States Supreme Court and clings to archaic procedures which have been invalidated for decades. Consequently, this cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.28 CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT DENIED; TRIAL COURT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED. Gurich, C.J., Darby, V.C.J., Kauger, Edmondson, Colbert, Combs and Rowe (by separate writing), JJ., concur; Winchester and Kane (by separate writing), JJ., concur in part; dissent in part. FOOT