Owners of irrigation water rights (the "Tonkos") diverted by the Tatman Ditch from Oak Creek, tributary to the Arkansas River, filed an application for change of water right and sought confirmation that they were using their Tatman Ditch water rights in a manner consistent with the original decree. Before filing the water court application, the Tonkos' predecessor-in-interest had filed a condemnation proceeding in district court to obtain a right-of-way to transport their Tatman Ditch water rights across land owned by another landowner. The district court dismissed the condemnation proceeding after concluding that the water court had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the Tonkos' predecessor-in-interest had or could obtain an adjudicated water right. The Tonkos' predecessor-in-interest subsequently filed the water court application. The water court granted summary judgment against the Tonkos on the basis of issue preclusion, holding that the historic use of their water rights had been litigated in the district court condemnation proceeding. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the district court properly ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to determine the extent of the Tonkos decreed rights in the Tatman Ditch, and that the water court erred in granted summary judgment on the basis of issue preclusion.
