The plaintiffs, Closed Basin Landowners Association (Landowners) and A.Z.L. Resources, Inc. (AZL), appeal after summary judgment was entered against them by the water court for Division No. 3 on their collateral challenge to a decree adjudicating a conditional water right to the defendant, Rio Grande Water Conservation District (Rio Grande). We affirm.
I.
On December 22, 1972, Rio Grande filed an application in Case No. W-3038 for a conditional water right to develop the “Closed Basin Project” in Saguache and Alamosa Counties, Colorado. The Closed Basin Project, first envisioned over fifty years ago, is a mammoth undertaking designed to withdraw water from the unconfined aquifer of the Closed Basin in southern Colorado, and to deliver that water to the Rio Grande River. Normally, water that flows into the Closed Basin from precipitation and irrigation diverted from the Rio Grande is trapped by a natural hydraulic barrier at the southern boundary of the Basin. The water collects in the sump area of the Basin, and much of the water is lost to evaporation and evapotranspiration. The goal of the Closed Basin project is to lower the water table in the sump area by approximately two feet through the construction and operation of over one-hundred shallow wells, and to reduce water losses to evaporation and evapotranspiration. Water salvaged from the sump area is to be delivered to the Rio Grande River to help meet Colorado’s obligations to New Mexico and Texas under the Rio Grande Compact. See Rio Grande Compact, P.L. No. 96, 53 Stat. 785 (1939); § 37-66-101, 15 C.R.S. (1973). The Closed Basin Project is a federal reclamation project authorized by Congress. Act of Oct. 3, 1980, P.L. No. 92-514, 86 Stat. 964, as amended, Act of Oct. 3, 1980, P.L. No. 96-375, sec. 6, 94 Stat. 1505, 1507.
Rio Grande’s application for a conditional water right stated that the legal descrip
The salvage of waters is to be accomplished by the construction and operation of approximately 80 shallow wells in Tract A and approximately 70 shallow wells in Tract B which will withdraw waters from the shallow or unconfined aquifer and will be so spaced within their respective tracts as to lower the entire water table within the tracts so as to preclude substantial loss of water through surface evaporation or evapo-transpiration.
The application contained a legal description of Tracts A and B by section, township, and range, but did not specify the location of the wells. The application claimed an appropriation by diversion of a total amount of “277 cubic feet [of water] per second of time,” but did not specify the amount of water to be diverted from each well. Tracts A and B contain over 100,000 acres, and enclose approximately 170 square miles of land.
On January 11, 1973, the water clerk for Division No. 3 prepared a resume of water applications filed in December 1972, and published the resume in newspapers of general circulation in Saguache and Alamo-sa Counties, Colorado. Although the application alleged that the claimed water was “not tributary to any stream,” the resume did not state whether or not the water was tributary. Aside from that omission, the resume contained the information set forth above from Rio Grande’s application. Eleven statements of opposition and four entries of appearance were filed.
On November 9, 1977, a hearing was held before a water referee on Rio Grande’s application. After the hearing, the referee referred the application to the water judge in an order which stated:
At -the hearing ... it developed that, some unspecified number of the proposed wells would be located on private lands. The Referee determined that owners of lands on.which wells were proposed to be located should have notice of this fact, and required applicant to provide the names and addresses of owners of lands affected.... [I]t appears that 63 of the 126 proposed wells are projected to be located on privately owned lands.
The referee proposed that Rio Grande either (1) provide special notice to landowners in the Closed Basin, or (2) amend its application to specify the location of the proposed wells. Rio Grande objected to further notice, and asserted in a memorandum to the court:
The concept of the Closed Basin Project ... is not that of a series of independent diversions through individual wells acting as separate points of diversion. It is a single appropriation, because it depends upon a lowering of the water table under substantially the entire project area, accomplished through the strategic location of wells for the withdrawal of water to achieve the desired pattern of lowered water table. For the same reason, the point of diversion is the entire project area, not the individual well sites. The well locations shown on the project maps and used for the purpose of obtaining the well permits are schematic only. The exact location of the actual wells to be constructed for the first phase of the project is only now being determined in the course of completing the final plan report.... In all probability, most will not actually be constructed at the locations now identified by the well permits.
The water court found that the original resume publication provided proper and sufficient notice to interested parties, and returned the matter to the referee with directions to rule on the application. The referee considered Rio Grande’s application, and issued his report on August 23, 1979 approving a conditional water right in favor of Rio Grande. The water court accepted the referee’s report with some modifications, and entered a decree on April 21, 1980 granting Rio Grande’s application. The water court found that the unconfined aquifer of the Closed Basin, together with its inflow tributaries, constituted a natural
On March 24, 1982, Landowners
On May 13, 1982, the Colorado Water Conservation Board moved to intervene as a defendant, and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 20, 1982, the water court entered an order allowing the Colorado Water Conservation Board to intervene.
On May 28, 1982, AZL filed a petition to correct or set aside the decree in Case No. W-3038. ÁZL later abandoned its petition, and moved to intervene as a plaintiff in Landowners’ action on September 16, 1982.
On June 28, 1982, the United States moved to intervene as a defendant, and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion to intervene on September 16, 1982, and allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend its complaint to add a second claim for relief. The second claim for relief alleged that the decree was void because Rio Grande’s application failed to state the amount of water withdrawn from each proposed well.
On October 26, 1982, the water court denied the motions to dismiss and granted plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor leave to file a second amended complaint setting forth all claims they wished to assert. Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor declined to amend the complaint, and defendant and defendant-intervenors filed timely answers to the first amended complaint.
On April 9, 1984, the defendant and defendant-intervenors filed a motion for summary judgment. Briefs were filed, and the court entered a written order granting the motion on November 29, 1984. Landowners and AZL now appeal the water court’s entry of summary judgment pursuant to Colo. Const, art. VI, § 2(2) and section 13-4-102(l)(d), 6 C.R.S. (1973).
II.
On appeal, Landowners and AZL assert four grounds for reversal of the water court’s entry of summary judgment. First, Landowners and AZL claim that the published resume notice in Case No. W-3038 was fatally defective under both Colorado law and the Due Process Clause of the fourteenth amendment because the notice failed to specify the location of the wells and the amount of water to be withdrawn by each. Second, the appellants maintain that notice by publication in Case No. W-3038 is invalid under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams,
A.
Summary judgment is a drastic remedy to be invoked only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to relief as a matter of law. Salida School District R-32-J v. Morrison,
It is axiomatic that a court must have jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the case if its judgment is to be valid. People v. Coyle,
B.
Our analysis of appellants’ claim that the content of the resume-notice of Rio Grande’s application is constitutionally invalid must begin with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. The notice must be of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance. But if with due regard for the practicalities and peculiarities of the case these conditions are reasonably met, the constitutional requirements are satisfied. The criterion is not the possibility of conceivable injury but the just and reasonable character of the requirements, having reference to the subject with which the statute deals.
But when notice is a person’s due, process which is a mere gesture is not due process. The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonable adopt to accomplish it.
Id. at 314-15,
Mullane teaches that the constitutional sufficiency of the content of a notice to interested parties must depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case. The court’s inquiry must focus on the reasonableness of the notice, giving due regard to the subject with which the statute deals and the practicalities and peculiarities of the case.
The published resume in Case No. W-3038 was constitutionally sufficient when reviewed in the light of Mullane. The published notice stated that the nature of the appropriation was the “salvage of waters” to be accomplished by the strategic placement of wells within two specifically described tracts of land so as to lower the water table over the entire area. The concept of the Closed Basin Project was not the appropriation of water from many discrete points, but a diversion of water from the entire area. The content of the published resume gave reasonable notice that the points of the proposed diversion would consist of the entire area of Tracts A
We therefore conclude that based upon the unique facts of this case, the content of the published resume described the proposed appropriation with sufficient precision to withstand constitutional attack.
C.
We also reject the appellants’ contention that the resume’s failure to describe the location of the well sites and the amount of water to be withdrawn violates the notice provisions of the Water Right Determination and Administration Act of 1969 (the Act). Section 37-92-302(3)(a), 15 C.R.S. (1986 Supp.), of the Act provides that the water clerk shall prepare a resume of all applications in the water division filed during the preceding month, “which shall give the name and address of the applicant, a description of the water right or conditional water right involved, and a description of the ruling sought.” Section 37-92-302(2), 15 C.R.S. (1986 Supp.), provides that the standard forms for applications for a determination of a water right or a conditional water right shall require “a legal description of the diversion or proposed diversion, a description of the source of the water, ... the amount of water claimed, and the use or proposed use of the water.”
Because the notice provisions of the Act establish the only statutory mechanism to advise interested parties of the pendency of an application for a conditional water right, the applicant must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act. See Danielson v. Jones,
Contrary to the protestants’ assertion, there is no “notice” problem with Southeastern’s 1980 application, since both the application and resume indicated that it was the 1962 conditional storage decree for Pueblo Reservoir and the 1969 conditional storage decree for Turquoise Lake which Southeastern was seeking to make partially absolute.... [BJecause the language of those conditional decrees was broad enough to encompass storage of western slope water in exchange for eastern slope water, the resume, which made reference to those decrees, was sufficient to put interested persons on notice of the absolute storage rights sought by Southeastern_ [I]n the instant case neither the application nor the resume prepared from it was in any way misleading as to the nature of the conditional water storage rights sought to be made absolute.
Id. at 601-02 (emphasis added and footnote omitted).
Similarly, in Danielson v. Jones,
A conditional water right is adjudicated by a judicial decree recognizing the existence of an uncompleted appropriation. See City of Denver v. Colorado River Water Conservation District,
The key is that the appropriator must provide interested persons with notice “of such a character that they may fairly be said to be thereby charged with at least such notice as would reasonably be calculated to put them on inquiry of the prospective extent of the proposed use and consequent demand upon the water supply involved.” Fruitland Irrigation Co. v. Kruemling,62 Colo. 160 , 165,162 P. 161 , 163 (1916).... We decline to endorse the referee’s conclusion that in every case, a would-be appropriator must determine the exact amount of water to be diverted at a precisely located point of diversion before that appropriator can form the necessary intent to appropriate or provide sufficient notice to others. Rather, the determination must always be made on an ad hoc basis, taking into account whether the particular facts of each case satisfy the purposes underlying the requirements of the first step test.
(Emphasis added.)
Rio Grande maintained throughout Case No. W-3038 that it did not claim a conditional water right for each well as a separate point of diversion. Rather, Rio Grande claimed the entire area of Tracts A and B for purpose of salvaging water from the sump area of the Closed Basin and lowering the water table uniformly over the two tracts. As required by section 37-92-302(3)(a), 15 C.R.S. (1986 Supp.), the resume notice included a description of the ruling sought and the conditional water right involved. The resume put interested parties on inquiry notice of the nature, scope, and impact of the proposed diversion, and complied with the provisions of the Act.
D.
We do not address the appellants’ assertion that notice by publication is constitutionally invalid under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams,
Furthermore, the appellants have not alleged that they failed to receive actual notice of the application, a prerequisite to constitutional standing. See Pueblo West Metropolitan District v. Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
Landowners asserts that the alleged lack of proper notice in Case No. W-3038 deprived the water court of subject matter jurisdiction, and rendered the decree void and subject to attack at any time. We disagree. While it is true that a judgment of a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void, see City of Grand Junction v. Kannah Creek Water Users Association,
Subject matter jurisdiction concerns “the court’s authority to deal with the class of cases in which it renders judgment.” In re Marriage of Stroud,
E.
AZL’s remaining contentions may not be raised in a collateral attack to an
AZL’s assertion that the resume notice was defective because it failed to state the non-tributary character of water in the Closed Basin is inconsistent with the water court’s finding that the water was a natural surface stream system subject to appropriation. That finding is not subject to a collateral attack.
Similarly, AZL’s claim that the decree was invalid under Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District v. Shelton Farms, Inc.,
Accordingly, the water court’s entry of summary judgment is affirmed.
Notes
. Landowners is an unincorporated association, the members of which are landowners in the closed basin of the San Luis Valley in Alamosa and Saguache Counties, Colorado. Some, but not all, members of Landowners were members of the Closed Basin Protective Association, which filed a statement of opposition in Case No. W-3038.
. On June 18, 1984, AZL moved to amend its petition to correct substantive errors in the decree entered in Case No. W-3038, contending that the water of the Closed Basin was "nontri-butary water, and not subject to administration under Article 92.” The water court denied the motion on November 29, 1984, reasoning that the motion was not timely and that the petition had been voluntarily withdrawn on September 16, 1982. See § 37-92-304(10), 15 C.R.S. (1973). AZL does not challenge the denial of its motion.
. Landowners asserts that summary judgment was inappropriate in this case because three affidavits filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment establish issues of material fact with respect to the sufficiency of process in Case No. W-3038. We disagree. Two of the affidavits were prepared by Brent Spronk, a professional engineer, and state that in his opinion descriptions of well locations by a method at least as precise as quarter-quarter sections and descriptions of the amount of water claimed by flow rate from each well are necessary to meet "minimum acceptable standards of accuracy.” The third affidavit was prepared by an employee of Spronk’s, and states that almost all resumes of applications prepared in Division No. 3 during 1972 stated the location of the proposed diversion with greater specificity than that employed in Case No. W-3038.
Neither Spronk's opinion on the "minimum standards of accuracy” nor the methods of description employed in other cases are relevant to the adequacy of notice in this case. As the water court found, an unusually large number of applications were filed in 1972 to adjudicate water rights diverted by wells to take advantage of the "grandfather” provisions of section 37-92-306, 15 C.R.S. (1973), which allowed holders of underground water rights to obtain a priority as of the date of the actual appropriation if the application was filed no later than July 1, 1972. Consequently, many applications for underground water rights filed in 1972 were to adjudicate wells which already had been constructed. Rio Grande’s application was unique, however, because Rio Grande sought to divert water from the entire project area to lower the water table of the sump area of the Closed Basin uniformly. Regardless of the method of description that may have been used in 1972 in other cases, the adequacy of the resume notice in this case must be judged on its own facts.
The Spronk affidavits do not raise a genuine issue of material fact because the constitutional and statutory sufficiency of notice is a question of law to be determined by the court. Spronk’s conclusion that Rio Grande’s application does not meet his minimum standards of accuracy are irrelevant to the court's inquiry into the sufficiency of notice as a matter of law. See Kavanagh v. Hamilton,
. Landowners also contends that the decree in Case No. W-3038 is void because Rio Grande failed to comply with the application form adopted in Water Division No. 3. We disagree. The form to which Landowners refers is an application for “domestic and other small wells,” and does not apply to Rio Grande’s proposed appropriation. Further, even if the form was pertinent to Rio Grande’s application, C.R. C.P. 90 permits the water court to accept an application which is not in conformity with the forms if “strict conformity may be unsuitable, prejudicial, or impose an unreasonable burden."
. In Montezuma Valley Irrigation Co. v. Wilkerson,
. The Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure apply to proceedings under the Act if they are consistent with the provisions of the Act. Danielson v. Jones,
. In Shelton Farms, we held that an appropriator may not claim a water right outside the priority system by establishing that water was salvaged by the destruction of phreatophytes (water-consuming plants) on the appropriator's land.