Title: Whitten v. Coit
Citation: 385 P.2d 131
Docket Number: 20032
State: Colorado
Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court
Date: September 9, 1963

385 P.2d 131 (1963) J. E. WHITTEN, State Engineer of Colorado, Frederick Paddock, Irrigation Division Engineer of Irrigation Division No. 4, Woodrow W. Saunders, Water Commissioner of Water District No. 42 of the State of Colorado, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Lincoln D. COIT, Executor of the Estate of M. Humphries, Deceased, J. Lewis Ford, et al., Defendants in Error. No. 20032. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. September 9, 1963. *132 Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., John B. Barnard, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiffs in error. Albin Anderson, Grand Junction, for defendant in error J. Lewis Ford. Smith, Holmes, Williams &amp; Turner, Traylor, Ela, Kladder &amp; Harshman, Reams, Uhrlaub &amp; Carter, Grand Junction, for certain defendants in error joining in the brief of the Attorney General. MOORE, Justice. The controversy now presented for determination was before this court in an original proceeding entitled Prinster et al. v. District Court, 137 Colo. 393, 325 P.2d 938. A majority of the court determined that the controlling question should not be decided in an original proceeding and that the cause should proceed to final judgment to which a writ of error should be directed. A statement of the facts pertinent to our present inquiry is set forth in Prinster et al. v. District Court, supra, as follows: "A motion to dismiss the action was filed in behalf of `the defendants herein *133 who are represented by their respective attorneys.' The record does not disclose who of several defendants joined in the motion. Thereafter certain of the defendants instituted the original proceedings hereinabove mentioned. Following announcement of the opinion in Prinster v. District Court, supra, a joint answer was filed by twenty of the named defendants and a separate answer was filed on behalf of the W. F. McCoy Company. The action was tried to the court and upon the evidence adduced, the trial court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Judgment and Decree which includes, inter alia, the following: The "decree adjudicating priorities" to which reference is made by the trial court is the decree entered in the 1948 adjudication proceedings, being Civil Action No. 10599 in the district court of Mesa county, Colorado. By this 1948 decree, which purported to grant priorities to certain wells, the following determination of pertinent facts was made: The trial court in the instant action adjudged, inter alia: In addition to the above quoted order on the state officers, the trial court enjoined numerous other defendants from, Other restraints not here material were placed upon said defendants. The only plaintiffs in error who seek reversal of the judgment, or any part thereof, are the State Engineer and subordinate water officials who take exception to the mandate of the trial court that they shall, "* * * control and administer said underground waters and wells in the same manner and to the same purpose as in the case of diversions from public streams of the State of Colorado." All those persons who were defendants in the trial court and who do not join as plaintiffs in error were named as defendants in error and are parties to the action in this court. The plaintiffs in the trial court are also named as defendants in error. Only one of them, namely J. Lewis Ford, has appeared in this court to contest the issues raised by the attorney general on behalf of the state officials. We are dealing here with waters which are admittedly not tributary to any natural stream. The purported decree of 1948 specifically so found; and it is conceded by the parties in the instant action that the waters contained in the aquifers involved are not waters which would ever become a part of any natural stream. In the pretrial conference memorandum dated June 10, 1959, the trial court recited that the waters involved were, "* * * not tributary to any stream * * *." In the final judgment and decree the trial court said, inter alia, "The basin, which is closed, is very large, and some of the aquifers are very thick." (Emphasis supplied). Counsel for J. Lewis Ford, the only party to the action in this court who appears to dispute the position taken by the attorney general, makes the following statement as definitive of the issue for determination: "Ford is agreeable to resting the appeal on the questions of (1) whether the District Court had jurisdiction to give him a decree for water, not tributary to a stream, out of a confined aquifer and (2) whether the District Court can call on the State Engineer to assist in enforcing its sanctions against junior wells having no decrees. * * *" The controlling question which we are called upon to determine is, whether the doctrine of prior appropriation of water to beneficial use is applicable to underground waters which are not tributary to *135 any natural stream, and so results in a priority of right to the water thus used. The constitution of the state of Colorado (Article XVI, Section 5) provides: Section 6 of said Article in pertinent part reads as follows: Thus the constitutional provisions referred to make specific reference in recognizing the "appropriation" doctrine only to the waters in "natural streams." C.R.S. '53, 147-11-1 to 6 provide for the appointment of a state engineer and define his duties. We direct attention to a few pertinent passages from this chapter as follows: 147-11-3: In 147-11-6 we find: Our water adjudication statute was adopted in 1943. A careful examination of the sections thereof leads to the conclusion that they were not designed or intended to apply to wells drawing water from a closed artesian basin from a supply which is not tributary to any stream. For example in 147-9-1 the term "court" is defined as the court having jurisdiction of the adjudication of water rights in a particular water district. 147-13-1 provides that water districts are established to include lands irrigated from ditches "taking water from the following described rivers or natural streams of the state of Colorado * * *." (Emphasis supplied) The entire plan of the water adjudication act is based on the concept of "rivers and natural streams." In Safranek et al. v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 228 P.2d 975, it was held that there is a presumption that underground water is tributary to a natural stream in the watershed in which it is found and that he who asserts that underground water is not tributary to a stream has the burden of establishing that fact. In the absence of such evidence the presumption prevails. From the opinion in that case we quote the following: "Had it been established by the record in this case that the water diverted by the town was nontributary ground water, such as an underground lake, the waters of which are not a part or source of a natural stream, still the above-quoted statement upon which counsel for respondents base their claim of ownership of the water would not be a correct statement of Colorado law. [The statement referred to was that sub-surface waters not tributary to any stream are the property of the owners of the land as at common law.] * * * Whether in such case we should follow the California doctrine *136 of reciprocal rights, * * * or whether we should extend one step further our Colorado doctrine of first in time, first in right, need not now be determined. * * *" It is also stated in Safranek that if there had been proof that the waters there involved were nontributary, "* * * we would, in such case, be confronted with the question upon which there is an absence of statutory law in Colorado as well as of direct decision by our courts. * * *" The Safranek opinion was announced March 5, 1951, and the Colorado Ground Water Act was thereafter adopted in 1957. The story behind that statute and an understanding of the original form in which it was presented to the legislature and the drastic changes which were made in it before adoption, will lead inescapably to the conclusion that the general assembly painstakingly and purposely excluded nontributary underground water from coverage under the doctrine of appropriation. We think it important to briefly trace the legislative history of the Ground Water Law of 1957. Senate Bill 113, (Colorado Ground Water Law), as originally printed and introduced in the Colorado Senate, contained, inter alia, these significant provisions: "Whenever the commission shall determine, upon recommendation by the district advisory board or upon demand of an aggrieved appropriator, that withdrawals of ground water within a restricted district materially and injuriously affect the rights of senior appropriators of *137 ground water, the state engineer shall either limit such withdrawals in the inverse order of the dates of such priorities, or impose such terms and conditions upon continued use as may be agreed upon by consultation with the district advisory board. It is significant that Section 12 as above set out was, on March 14, 1957, stricken in its entirety by the Senate, (page 508, Senate Journal, 41st General Assembly), and further, that on March 18, 1957, the Senate further amended said bill by: (a) Striking from the title as hereinabove set out, the words "providing for the settling of the priority of rights to such use," (page 534, Senate Journal, 41st General Assembly); and (b) providing for some 40 amendments thereto by striking therefrom the words "appropriator" and "appropriation" and substituting the words "user" and "use", (pages 535 and 536, Senate Journal, 41st General Assembly). Senate Bill 113 as above amended was referred to the House on March 26, 1957, and the House, realizing the futility of trying to delete all references recognizing the appropriation of artesian water, amended the Senate Bill in its entirety, (page 575, House Journal, 41st General Assembly), which bill, as amended, with minor changes, is the one which was signed into law on May 1, 1957. The legislative history as above stated shows that the legislature attempted to remove any doubt as to its intentions and that it contemplated under the provisions *138 of this bill that there would be an equitable and efficient use of noniributary underground water not pursuant to any theory of appropriation. The undisputed testimony of the only expert whose evidence was introduced pointed up many differences between the "closed" aquifers with which we are here concerned and those which are not "closed" but are flowing tributaries to a natural stream. We point out some of these differences which would pose insurmountable problems if an attempt should be made to apply the doctrine of prior appropriation. 1. The water bearing formations which are the sources for the water we are concerned with, consist of three principal formations, and two minor formations. The deepest is the Wingate, more than 1,000 feet beneath the surface, and about 350 feet thick. Above the Wingate is an impervious structure, and above this is the Entrada sandstone. Again, above this is an impervious layer of stone, and above this, the Morrison formation. The two lesser formations are the Burro Canyon and Dakota Sandstone, which have been and will be by us, largely ignored because of their lack of importance to the issues here. The aquifers are very "tight" and water moves through them very slowly. However, a large quantity of water is contained therein, and great pressures have built up, enough to raise the water the hundreds of feet to the surface. The fact that the presure brings water from a well drilled into one of the aquifers above the top of the aquifer itself qualifies it as "artesian", as such is the definition "artesian". 2. These aquifers are still full of water notwithstanding withdrawals therefrom, and for many years to come will remain full, the effect of withdrawals being only to reduce pressure. Regardless of the amount of water in the aquifer, each well has a certain limit to its potential production by virtue of the nature of the aquifer and the fact that it will only release so much water in a given time. 3. The so-called interference between these wells is limited to an interference with pressure, since the aquifer is still full of water. 4. A well will lose pressure by virtue of the withdrawal of water through that well, whether or not there is any other well in the aquifer. 5. Every well that is drilled into any part of any of the aquifers theoretically will reduce the pressure available at any other well, as well as the pressure in the well drilled. 6. The amount of interference is determined by three factors, i. e., the distance between wells, the rate of withdrawal, and the transmissibility of the aquifer. If the rate is low or the distance is great, the interference may be immeasurable for a period of years. With these considerations in mind we consider some complex problems which the "appropriation" doctrine would be inadequate to handle. 1. Assume that the most junior well is many miles from the most senior and the intermediate well is close to the senior. The intermediate well has a greater effect on the senior in a shorter period of time, but ultimately and irretrievably the junior well will have an effect on both the intermediate and the senior well. Question: If "appropriation" doctrine is to be applied, which well should be restricted in order to protect the senior? It should be borne in mind that the senior well itself has the effect of reducing its own pressure. 2. Assume the existence of fifteen wells of varying distances from the most senior. Each will ultimately interfere to a greater or less extent with the pressure in the senior well. Question: Under the doctrine of "appropriation" are all wells except the most senior to be shut down in order to protect the pressure in the senior well? 3. If this is not to be done, what standards of interference are to be applied, and are these standards to be determined by the court? *139 The Colorado Ground Water Act of 1957 does not form the basis of any legal justification for the order upon the state officials to "administer" the waters contained in the aquifers involved. The primary purpose of this Act was prospectively to protect underground waters and prevent waste in their production, distribution and use. It certainly was not the intention by the adoption thereof to provide a procedure for the adjudication of water rights. The Act deals only with regulation of the manner of construction of wells to prevent waste. It is entirely prospective in operation, as indeed it must be to avoid the constitutional prohibition against the adoption by the legislature of any law which is "retroactive in its operation." (Article II, section 11). The Act provides that the Ground Water Commission may declare a given area to be a "tentatively critical ground water district" and once an area has been declared within such designation it "shall thereupon become subject to the regulations prescribed in this Article." The regulations are that after such designation no new wells can be dug, or the water drawn from existing wells be increased unless the user shall make application in writing to the state engineer for permission to do so and the application be approved. Except for the ministerial duty of issuing permits to existing wells and authorizing an enlarged use of such wells, Section 10 of the Act is the only section in which the legislature has authorized participation by the state engineer in its administration. The prospective nature of the Act is clearly illustrated by the following language: It is difficult to find in this language any legislative authority for the engineer to function with reference to wells which had been drilled long prior to the adoption of the Act. Every well involved in this controversy was drilled long prior to the legislative enactment. Section 10 provides two remedies for the state engineer in a situation where waste is involved. These are: 1. To go in and do the work and hold the driller liable on his bond. This can only apply to wells drilled since the adoption of the act. The wells here were drilled before the bond requirement came into existence, so there is no bond available to make this remedy available. 2. The other remedy provided is to revoke the license of the driller. For the same reason as given above, this is inapplicable in the case of wells drilled before the statute became effective. It is clear that these provisions were prospective only, yet the legislature was specifically legislating on the subject of waste to ground water from wells. Since the only provisions resulting from these labors affecting existing wells are provisions for their registration (147-19-2), the obvious intent being that nothing be done in respect to waste from existing wells. The legislature wholly failed to charge the state engineer with any duties whatever with reference to existing wells, and the fact that it is not a good thing that water be wasted from an existing well cannot serve to charge the state engineer with any duty to interfere therewith in the complete absence of legislative direction designed to effect a cure and prevent the waste of water not tributary to any public stream, and which is, accordingly, private property. In the entire article the word "appropriation" appears but one time and that is in section 9 where we find: This provision obviously was intended to apply to decreed priorities to underground water which can properly be granted a priority *140 under the doctrine of appropriation because it is public water, "* * * since it belongs to the river, it belongs to the people of the state by article 16, § 5, of her Constitution." Nevius v. Smith, 86 Colo. 178, 279 P. 44. The quoted section of the statute was necessary because the clear indication of numerous decisions of this court is that only that portion of underground water which supplies a natural stream is subject to the doctrine of appropriation in like manner as surface waters. As stated in Faden v. Hubbell, 93 Colo. 358, 28 P.2d 247, the reason it is thus subject to appropriation is "* * * because they [tributary underground waters] belong to the river." Section 9 above quoted should be considered in the light of subsection 7, wherein we find the following: If, however, underground water does not belong to the river and does not contribute to a natural stream it is not public water and is not subject to the doctrine of prior appropriation. We approve the language used by a distinguished member of the bar of this state, Mr. William R. Kelly, who has had a long and varied experience in matters involving water law in a well documented article published in Vol. 31, Rocky Mountain Law Review at page 165, 171: Holding as we do that underground waters which are not tributary to any natural stream are not subject to the doctrine of appropriation, it necessarily follows that the original decree entered by Judge Littler in the adjudication proceedings of 1948, under which the court purported to award priorities to the plaintiffs in this action, were void for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter and for a lack of power to adjudicate such rights. It has long been established as basic law that the validity of a judgment depends upon the court's jurisdiction of the person and of the subject matter of the particular issue it assumes to decide. Considering what is meant by the term "jurisdiction" it is well settled that this term includes the court's power to enter the judgment, and the entry of a decree which the court has no authority to enter is without jurisdiction and void. A void judgment may be attacked directly or collaterally. Newman v. Bullock, 23 Colo. 217, 47 P. 379; Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Board of Fremont County Commissioners, *141 95 Colo. 435, 37 P.2d 761; Greene v. Phares et al., 124 Colo. 433, 237 P.2d 1078; United States National Bank of Denver v. Bartges, 120 Colo. 317, 210 P.2d 600. Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. et al., v. City and County of Denver, 138 Colo. 171, 330 P.2d 1116; Thompson v. McCormick, 138 Colo. 434, 335 P.2d 265; West End Irrigation Company et al. v. Garvey, Executor et al., 117 Colo. 109, 184 P.2d 476. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the action. HALL, J., dissents. HALL, Justice (dissenting). I dissent. On August 23, 1948, Judge Littler, now deceased, in Civil Action 7327 in the District Court of Mesa County, Colorado, entitled: entered a decree wherein findings were made and the rights of eighteen claimants were determined. The court found, in conformity with the requirements of CRS '53, 147-9-11: Among other findings made are the following: "The wells involved in this proceeding are bottomed in three separate and distinct sands: the upper sand is known as the Morrison Sand, the second sand down is known as the Entrada Sand and the bottom sand as the Wingate Sand. These sands have no connection with each other and are separated by an impervious structure so that no water seeps or percolates from one to the other. The water contained in these sands is not tributary to any natural surface stream. All of the wells involved in this proceeding are located within the exterior boundary lines of Water District No. 42. Inasmuch as the three sands involved *142 constitute separate sources of water, the wells bottomed in each sand respectively are given separate priorities, and each sand should be considered in effect a separate district. The legislature not having at this time assigned a number to designate these sands as separate districts, they should be designated as zones within Water District No. 42, and accordingly, the Morrison Sand is designated as Zone No. 1 in Water District No. 42, the Entrada Sand as Zone No. 2 in Water District No. 42, and the Wingate Sand as Zone No. 3 in Water District No. 42. No steps have ever been taken to modify, set aside or review this decree. On January 8, 1957, eight of the above mentioned claimants, (to whom I refer as plaintiffs) who were decreed priorities in the above mentioned proceedings, commenced this action. They named as defendants (1) twenty-eight persons or firms, who they allege have no decreed or other rights to take water from plaintiffs' sources, who are taking water therefrom and depleting plaintiffs' decreed sources of supply; (2) ten of the above mentioned claimants who were decreed priorities in the above mentioned proceedings, who refused to join as plaintiffs in this action and were named as defendants; (3) the State Engineer, the Division Engineer and the Water Commissioner of Water District No. 42, and (4) "All Unknown Persons who claim any interest in the subject matter of this action." Plaintiffs sought the following relief: On July 31, 1957, the state water officials filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, setting forth as grounds therefor: *143 This motion was, on October 7, 1957, overruled and on October 16, 1957, these defendants filed their answer wherein: On March 4, 1957, a MOTION TO DISMISS plaintiffs' action was filed by Urged as ground for dismissal is the following: This motion was finally overruled on October 9, 1957, and the defendants were given ten days to answer, "unless some Defendant desires to stand on Motion to Dismiss * * *." Significantly not one defendant saw fit to stand on his position that the Littler decree was void. On June 30, 1958, twenty of the defendants, some having decreed rights, others having wells but no decreed rights, filed an answer wherein they set forth that: They pray that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that they be awarded such relief as may seem proper to the court. On October 16, 1957, McCoy Company, owner of an unadjudicated well, filed its answer wherein it admits most allegations of plaintiffs' complaint and denies other allegations. It prays that plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed and that it be awarded costs and general relief. On February 13, 1957, Holly Sugar Corporation, named as a defendant, owner of a well with a decreed right, filed its separate answer wherein it sets forth the terms and extent of its It asks for On October 25, 1957, defendant Fleck, owner of a well with a decreed right, and defendant Reinhardt, owner of a well with no decreed rights, filed a document labeled as a joint "STATEMENT OF POSITION" wherein they assert that the Littler decree is valid and binding upon all parties to this action. The allege that their statement shall not be construed as an admission or denial of any issues in the case. Eight other defendants, all of whom were duly served with process, failed to enter any appearance and their default was duly entered on February 28, 1961, prior to trial. Judge Hughes, who was then presiding over the case, in his order denying defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground that *144 the Littler decree was void, stated among other things: "We therefore see that the legislature has changed the law of adjudication *145 of priorities, or questions upon which the court in adjudication proceedings has jurisdiction, from those owning an interest in a ditch, canal or reservoir, to `hearing, adjudicating and settling all questions concerning the priority of appropriation of water between owners and claimants of water rights.' In my opinion Judge Hughes' analysis of the problem and resolution thereof is correct. A pretrial conference was held on October 19, 1960, at which time Judge Kempf entered an order stating the issues and his view of the law governing the case. He set the case for trial on May 1, 1961. Trial was to the court which, among other things, found the following facts: And stated: "As to the law applicable, the Court concludes: "6. The State Engineer and subordinate water officials are under the duty imposed by existing statutes to administer the water of these aquifers and enforce priorities decreed thereto as in the case of diversions from public streams of this state, and to require the persons owning or possessing such wells (1) to install shutoff valves or devices *146 to enable the flow to be cut off, (2) to case and cement each well or take such other action as is necessary to prevent the running of water from one formation to another, (3) to cease all waste of water from such wells after it reaches the surface, (4) to install a meter on each well to measure the quantity of water taken therefrom, (5) to allow the performance of such tests or measurements as may be required to determine from time to time the hydrostatic head or other facts concerning such well. The State Engineer and subordinate water officials are under the duty to make and maintain records of the data obtained regarding each such well. The Decree provides: The only parties who have entered an appearance here are the official defendants and the plaintiff Ford, the same Ford who applied for the adjudication before Littler. The official defendants contend that the waters involved are such that the doctrine of prior appropriation cannot logically be applied thereto and that there is no legislative duty on them to control or administer such waters or to carry out the trial court's ruling. They urge that this court correct the errors of the trial court and announce the law applicable in circumstances such as we have here. Ford urges that the judgment be affirmed. So far as the record before us discloses, not one of the eight plaintiffs or the thirty-eight nonofficial defendants who had their respective rights and duties adjudicated by Judge Kempf in this case has ever voiced any disapproval of his decree or taken any steps to have the same vacated or modified. In the majority opinion it is stated: I do not accept the foregoing statement as the problem presented for our determination. That problem was resolved by Judge Littler in 1948. All of the parties to that proceeding, also all of the parties to this proceeding whose rights and duties were adjudicated by the trial court, have been made parties here, and all (except the plaintiffs in error) have been summoned to appear in this court, as provided by Rule 111(e), R.C.P., Colo. Ford and none other has appeared and he urges that the judgment be affirmed. Plaintiffs in error seek reversal of that portion of the judgment which orders them to do certain specified acts in connection with administering the waters decreed to the various well owners. In my humble opinion the controlling and only question properly before us for consideration is the correctness of that part of the judgment directing the water officials to do certain acts The majority opinion, in outlining the duties of the state engineer and his subordinates, refers to CRS '53, 147-11-1, 3 and 6. The foregoing legislative directives were adopted in 1889. They may well have been adequate in 1889 when the state was in its infancy and underground and ground waters were a matter of little or no concern to anyone. However, as hereinafter pointed out, his duties were substantially increased by the 1957 "Colorado Ground Water Law." The majority opinion deals extensively with "the legislative history of the Ground Water Law of 1957," and it would seem may well have predicated its decision on inferences drawn from the fact that the legislature rejected and struck certain proposals from the initial draft of the act. I do not subscribe to that line of reasoning. What a legislative body does not do does not change the course of human events. In 1957 the legislature did adopt the "Colorado Ground Water Law." Inferences drawn from inaction of the legislature in certain areas must yield to its positive pronouncements. There are several pronouncements in the 1957 act which in my opinion are very pertinent in resolving the problems presented to the trial court, language which indicates an intention to confirm the holdings of Judges Littler, Hughes and Kempf, that all migrant waters are public waters and subject to appropriation, as are the *148 waters of flowing streams, sanctioning the court's directions to the state engineer. In this respect I consider the following provisions of the act as highly significant: 1960 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.: In the foregoing legislative pronouncements are many words peculiarly adapted to our procedures leading up to the acquisition of a decreed priority to the use of public waters. To mention some: "beneficial use," "diversion," "date when work diversion facilities was commenced," "the date when water was first applied to beneficial use," "evidence of an intent to abandon such use," "the date of the initiation of the use," "to obtain the water to which such owner is entitled as initiated by the original well." These words are common parlance in water adjudication proceedings; they are meaningful and cannot be ignored or their force minimized because the legislature saw fit to not use other proposed words. The majority opinion contains the following: The fact that the legislature said: impels me to a conclusion not in keeping with that expressed by the majority. I find great difficulty in determining from the record before us the nature of the waters involved. Judge Littler found that "the water contained in these sands is not tributary to any natural surface stream." Whether the word "surface" was used advisedly and for a purpose is not disclosed by the record. Certainly the water was not tributary to a surface streamyet it might well be tributary to a stream. Further confusion as to the nature of the waters involved arises out of testimony and comments and findings of the trial court in this case. Statements to the effect that the water moves slowly through relatively impermeable aquifers, that percolation is very slow, replenishment and recharge requires a long period of time, and there was not available any practical means of computing the recharge rate. All of which creates in my mind grave doubts as to whether the waters are tributary. If moving, however slowly, they are going somewhere, they are seeking lower ground and presumably are tributary. They are here today and gone tomorrow, which is inconsistent with any contention that they are a part of the lands. The 1957 Colorado Ground Water Law, in defining "aquifers" and "ground water," would seem to have contemplated this exact situation. In defining an aquifer as "a * * formation that * * * transmits ground water," the legislature has negated the idea of a closed basin. In defining ground water as "any water not visible on the surface of the ground," the legislature does not exclude ground waters that might be tributary. In the case before us the waters are in an aquifer, where they are transmitted, are being replenished, and they are subject to the rule stated in Safranek v. Town of Limon, 123 Colo. 330, 228 P.2d 975: I do not agree that the Littler decree is void. The waters involved, public or private, are in Water District No. 42, the district over which Judge Littler presided. *150 Certainly he, if anyone, had jurisdiction over the subject matter. Certain parties, including Ford, sought to have their respective rights to water adjudicated. The court had jurisdiction over the parties voluntarily appearing before him and also those brought before him by proper process. There was no other place for the parties to go to have their respective claims to the waters involved determined. In the majority opinion it is stated: It would seem that the subject matter was the water and clearly it was subject to his jurisdiction, just as land, minerals, cattle or other property in his district. Possibly the majority opinion, in speaking of subject matter, refers to water adjudication proceedingsclearly he had statutory authority and duty to conduct such proceedings and, according to the pronouncement of this court in Coffin, et al. v. Left Hand Ditch, supra, he could conduct adjudication proceedings without statutory authority. Judge Littler was duty bound to resolve matters brought before him. Here, one of the problems presented was to decide whether the waters involved were subject to appropriation and decree. Apparently the majority take the position that he had jurisdiction to say "No," but lacked jurisdiction to say "Yes." To that I do not subscribe. The judgment should be affirmed.