Elmer A. Kobobel, Mariam M. Kobobel, Larry A. Kobobel, Glen D. Kobobel, David A. Knievel, and Margery A. Knievel V…

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of the well owners' inverse-condemnation claims. It held that the claims were water matters within the water court's exclusive jurisdiction and that curtailing out-of-priority pumping did not take a constitutionally protected property interest because the owners' water rights were always subject to senior priorities and available supply. The court also held that dismissal without an evidentiary hearing was proper because the complaint could not establish a taking as a matter of law.