Kobobel v. STATE DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES, 249 P.3d 1127

Background

Well owners own farmland and thirteen decreed irrigation wells in Morgan County tied to the South Platte Basin.
In 2006 the State issued cease and desist orders prohibiting pumping from these wells until a decreed augmentation plan was entered by the water court.
The owners complied with the orders and allege the curtailment has rendered their farming operations essentially worthless.
They filed inverse condemnation claims in water court seeking just compensation for alleged takings, arguing the action violated Colorado and federal takings protections.
The water court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(5), ruling the claim was a water matter and that no compensable taking occurred because use is limited by prior appropriation.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding water matters fall under water court jurisdiction and the state orders did not constitute a taking.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inverse condemnation claims about water use are within water court jurisdiction	Kobobel argues the claim seeks compensation for a taking, not a water-use adjudication.	State argues the claim concerns water use rights and thus belongs in the water court.	Yes; the claims are water matters within the water court's exclusive jurisdiction.
Whether the State's cease and desist orders amounted to a regulatory taking	Kobobel contends the orders deprived them of vested rights and rendered farming effectively worthless.	State contends the orders enforce prior appropriation and do not take a constitutionally protected right.	No; the orders did not constitute a taking.
Nature of a water right and its relation to compensation claims	Kobobel asserts a property-right ownership in water rights that can be taken.	State argues water rights are usufructuary and subject to prior appropriation and non-injury to senior rights.	Water rights are vested but contingent; curtailment to protect senior rights does not transfer ownership or require compensation.
Effect of the 1969 Water Right Determination and Administration Act on pre-1969 rights	Pre-1969 appropriations should be preserved as vested rights free from later administration.	The Act preserved existing rights but not unfettered use; all rights remain subject to prior appropriation.	The Act did not create unfettered pre-1969 rights; prior appropriation governs and the state may curtail out-of-priority uses.

Key Cases Cited

Navajo Development Co. v. Sanderson, 655 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1982) (defines water-right as a usufructuary right with priority)
Empire Lodge Homeowners' Ass'n v. Moyer, 39 P.3d 1139 (Colo. 2001) (explains integration of underground and surface water under prior appropriation)
In re Tonko, 154 P.3d 397 (Colo. 2007) (water courts have exclusive jurisdiction over water matters; ancillary issues allowed)
Humphrey v. Southwestern Development Co., 734 P.2d 637 (Colo. 1987) (distinguishes ownership of water rights from right to use water)
Town of Sterling v. Pawnee Ditch Extension Co., 42 Colo. 421, 94 P. 339 (Colo. 1908) (illustrates senior rights must be protected in takings context)
Pub. Serv. Co. v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377 (Colo. 2001) (articulates elements of inverse condemnation and regulatory takings)