Opinion ID: 1162719
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Effluent

Text: The Opponents argue that the summons was deficient because it did not specify that the rights of those treating, producing, or utilizing effluent could be affected by the adjudication. It is true that the summons did not specifically mention effluent, but we do not believe it follows that the summons was therefore constitutionally inadequate. The summons stated that the general adjudication would determine all rights to use water appropriable under [then] A.R.S. Sec. 45-131. Section 45-131, which has since been renumbered as § 45-141, [14] provided that: The waters of all sources, flowing in streams, canyons, ravines or other natural channels, or in definite underground channels, whether perennial or intermittent, flood, waste or surplus water, and of lakes, ponds and springs on the surface, belong to the public and are subject to appropriation and beneficial use.... (Emphasis added.) [15] We believe that the reference in the summons to all rights to use water appropriable under A.R.S. Sec. 45-131, coupled with that section's provision that waters of all sources ... are subject to appropriation, was sufficient to put effluent users on notice that the right to use effluent was subject to this adjudication and that such users should file their claims.