Kobobel v. State
Colorado Supreme Court
249 P.3d 1127 (2011)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
The Kobobels and the Knievels (plaintiffs) owned farmland with decreed irrigation wells in the South Platte River, an overappropriated basin in Colorado. Colorado presumes any pumping in overappropriated basins causes material injury to senior appropriators. All well owners must obtain augmentation plans that provide replacement water for senior rights. Initially the state engineer could approve plans, and South Platte farmers formed a company that provided replacement water. But in 1977, the legislature repealed the engineer’s authority and began requiring water-court approval of augmentation plans. Eventually the augmentation company ceased operations. In 2006, the state engineer ordered the farmers to stop pumping their wells until the water court approved an augmentation plan. The farmers brought an inverse-condemnation action against Colorado (defendant) asserting the cease-and-desist orders amounted to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The county court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over water matters, and the farmers moved to water court. The water court dismissed, finding the farmers did not have rights to use water out of priority and had to obtain an approved augmentation plan to replace out-of-priority depletions like all other Colorado well users. The farmers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Márquez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.