Gary Sheek, Sheek Family Limited Partnership, and Pamsey I. Sheek, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Roger Brooks, Veryl…

Summary

The court held that the published resume notice adequately placed interested parties on inquiry notice despite an error in the section and range identifying the Davenport Ditch headgate. Because the notice was sufficient and the water-right change was valid, the water court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' ancillary easement, trespass, theft, and injunction claims. The court affirmed the judgment on different grounds, concluding that the non-water claims should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction rather than deemed moot.