Opinion ID: 1433938
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Effect Of Prior Decree

Text: The Well Company argues that the 1978 augmentation decree for the wells in the subdivision contained a binding declaration that the Arapahoe formation water is nontributary. We do not agree. Because the published resume in connection with the application failed to give adequate notice, the water court found that the 1978 decree was void insofar as it purported to adjudicate the Arapahoe aquifer water beneath the subdivision as nontributary. Under section 37-92-302(3)(a), 10 C.R.S. (1997), all applications for water rights are to be compiled by the water clerk and published in the form of a resume which includes the name and address of the applicants, a description of the water rights involved, and a description of the rulings sought. Resume publication is intended to give notice of the nature, scope and impact of the decree sought, thereby enabling any interested person to file a statement of opposition and contest the factual or legal grounds for issuance of such a decree. Monaghan Farms v. City & County of Denver, 807 P.2d 9, 17 (Colo.1991). The reasonableness of the notice is determined by an inquiry standard: whether the notice is sufficient to reveal to potential parties the nature of the claim being made, so that they may determine whether to participate in the proceedings and conduct further inquiry into the full extent of those claims. Dallas Creek Water Co. v. Huey, 933 P.2d 27, 38 (Colo. 1997). In Stonewall Estates v. CF & I Steel Corp., 197 Colo. 255, 592 P.2d 1318 (1979), an applicant for an underground water right failed to specify in its application that the water sought to be withdrawn was nontributary. Similar to the circumstances here, the water court nevertheless found that the water was nontributary and issued a decree confirming some conditional and some absolute rights to the water. Several years later the applicant submitted its application for an absolute decree to the water, and the published resume then stated that the water claimed was nontributary. Several parties filed statements of opposition, alleging that they had been unaware previously that the claimed rights were to nontributary water. The water court set aside the prior decree on the ground that it had lacked jurisdiction due to the defective resume, and we affirmed. We stated that the resume suffered from such a defect that it was a nullity, and that the decree was entered without jurisdiction and was Void. Id. at 259, 592 P.2d at 1320. Although an incorrect determination that is within the jurisdiction of the water court cannot be collaterally attacked, a claim or issue adjudicated without proper notice cannot be given effect. See Williams v. Midway Ranches Property Owners Ass'n, Inc., 938 P.2d 515, 524 (Colo.1997). Therefore, the water court was correct in concluding that the prior decree was not res judicata in regard to the issue of whether the water beneath the subdivision was nontributary, due to lack of resume notice. [14]