PURCELL v. PARKER, 475 P.3d 834

Petitioners own land containing Colbert Creek (the sole source feeding Colbert Lake) and other parcels abutting the Lake; respondents (Parkers) own adjoining lake property.
Parkers contracted with Select Energy to withdraw lake water for oilfield fracking; Select obtained a provisional temporary permit from the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) without actual notice to petitioners.
Parkers later applied for a long-term stream-water permit; statutorily required notice was given only by newspaper publication (and OWRB website posting), not by individualized notice to the petitioners.
OWRB issued the stream-water permit; petitioners filed a declaratory-judgment action claiming publication-only notice under 82 O.S. §105.11 violated due process.
The McClain County trial court denied relief and refused to invalidate the permits; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted review and held that publication-only notice is constitutionally inadequate when affected landowners are known or readily discoverable, reversing and remanding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice by publication under 82 O.S. §105.11 satisfies due process when affected landowners are known or easily discoverable	Purcells: Publication-only notice is constitutionally insufficient; known landowners must receive personal or mailed notice	Parkers/OWRB: Statutory publication (and website posting) complied with the statute; no prejudicial error	Court: Publication-only notice is constitutionally inadequate in that situation; statute cannot excuse personal notice when parties are known or easily discoverable; reversed and remanded
Whether petitioners lacked a reviewable final agency order or other procedural impediment to relief	Purcells: Entitled to declaratory relief and review of notice scheme under APA because rights were affected	Parkers/OWRB: Argued no final agency order and hence no judicial review; any procedural defects were harmless	Court: Opinion limited to notice question under declaratory-judgment authority; did not resolve merits of final-order doctrine here but reversed for inadequate notice and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion

Cate v. Archon Oil Co., 695 P.2d 1352 (recognizing publication notice is inadequate when affected parties' whereabouts are known)
Dulaney v. Okla. State Dept. of Health, 868 P.2d 676 (administrative notice and hearing required where agency action may directly and adversely affect landowners' water-related property interests)
Harry R. Carlile Trust v. Cotton Petroleum, 732 P.2d 432 (publication is constitutionally deficient if more effective means of notice, like mail, are available)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due-process standard: notice reasonably calculated under circumstances to inform interested parties)
Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208 (publication is an inadequate substitute for actual notice where names and addresses are readily ascertainable)