In the matter of the Application for Water Rights of the King Consolidated Ditch Company, Morrison Consolidated…

Summary

The court affirmed the water court's judgment confirming that previously adjudicated decrees included year-round stockwatering and domestic uses incidental to agricultural use. It held that the application was a determination of a water right governed by resume notice rather than personal service, that the later verification related back to the original filing, and that intervention and the late statement of opposition were properly denied. Justice Rice, joined by Justices Coats and Eid, dissented, concluding that the application required personal service and mandatory joinder because it sought declaratory review of already-adjudicated rights.