Bienz v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'r

556 P.3d 227

2024 WY 102

Thomas A. and Karen R. BIENZ; Lynn Marie Broughton and Barry D. Matlack; Billy E. Brown; K.R. Brown and D.L. Matthew, as Trustees of the Brown-Matthew Revocable Trust; Robert and Mary Brownell; Robert and Kathy L. Buckardt; Marty Carter; Anthony C. Classi and Linda D. Johnson; Robert C. Corcoran, Trustee of the Robert C. Corcoran Living Trust; Alison A. Corcoran, Trustee of the Alison A. Corcoran Living Trust; Max D. and Lori A. Coulthard; Leslie A. Darnall, Trustee of the Leslie A. Darnall Living Trust; Roberta M. Darnall, Trustee of the Roberta M. Darnall Living Trust; Danny and Roberta Dunlavy; Sandra Farwell Eike, Trustee of the Sandra Farwell Eike Revocable Trust; John Bruce Embury; Clifford D. Ferris; Jessica Ann and Ray Stuart Fertig, III; Alan and Cheri C. Frank; Robert F. Garland, III, Trustee of the Robert F. Garland Revocable Trust; Robert L. and Jane R. Gonzales; JD and Candy Hamaker; Mary L. Haden-Wing and Larry Haden-Wing, Trustees of the Mary L. Hayden-Wing Revocable Trust; Robert F. and Carolyn W. Helling; Donald L. Jarvis; Ory J. Johnson; Cheryl L. and Lyle Johnston; Keith Kennedy; Greg and Dianna Kerr; Derek J. Mancinho; Ernie and Cindy Mecca; John F. Nelson and Judith Nelson, Trustees of the Judith E. Nelson Family Living Trust; Daniel A. Netzel, Trustee of the Daniel A. Netzel Revocable Trust; Jon Michael Pikal and Eva Siglinda Ferre-Pikal; James L. and Sally R. Richard; Henry R. Richter and Rita Allmaras-Richter; Shawn Sanders and Sanders Properties, LLC; Karen Diane Singer; Elizabeth H. and Richard B. Southwell Jr.; Kimberly J. Starkey, Trustee of the Kimberly J. Starkey Revocable Trust; Robert J. Starkey, Jr., Trustee of the Robert J. Starkey, Jr. Revocable Trust; Timothy and Kimberly Taylor; Marianne Viner; Fred C. and Peggy J. Waters; Thomas W. Weber, Trustee of the Thomas W. Weber Trust; Arnold and Wanda Willems; William A. Wolf, Trustee of the William A. Wolf Revocable Trust; Lyle Harold and Janice Kay Womack, Appellants (Petitioners),

v.BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF ALBANY, Wyoming, Appellee (Respondent).

Warren Livestock, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; JHD Ranch LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; Pilot Peak LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; and Lodgepole Ranch LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellants (Petitioners),

v.Board of County Commissioners, County of Albany, Wyoming, Appellee (Respondent).

S-24-0031

S-24-0032

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

September 25, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, The Honorable Misha E. Westby, Judge

Representing Appellants Bienz et al.: Daniel B. Frank, Frank Law Office, P.C., Meriden, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Frank.

Representing Appellants Warren Livestock, LLC; JHD Ranch LLC; Pilot Peak LLC; and Lodgepole Ranch LLC: Mitchell H. Edwards, Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Edwards.

Representing Appellee Board of County Commissioners, County of Albany, Wyoming: Matthew E. Ayres, Jennifer M. Curran, and Edward Kurt Britzius, Albany County & Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Ayres.

Before FOX, C.J., and BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, FENN, and JAROSH, JJ.

GRAY, Justice.

[¶1] In these consolidated appeals, Thomas A. and Karen R. Bienz, et al. (Property Owners) and Warren Livestock, LLC, et al. (Warren Livestock) seek judicial review under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA) challenging the Albany County Board of County Commissioners’ (Board) amendments to zoning regulations referred to as the Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone (APOZ). The district court dismissed the petitions for review, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction because the amendments were legislative acts and not reviewable under the WAPA. On appeal, Property Owners and Warren Livestock argue that the Board’s adoption of the APOZ amendments is reviewable and, among other things, that the Board lacked the authority to adopt the amendments. We conclude that the characterization of the Board’s action as legislative or adjudicatory does not preclude review but instead dictates the scope and nature of the review. We reverse and remand.

ISSUE

[¶2] Property Owners and Warren Livestock raise numerous issues. We remand to the district court on the first issue, which is:

Are the APOZ amendments reviewable on direct appeal under the WAPA?

and do not reach the remaining issues.¹

FACTS

[¶3] The Casper Aquifer underlies land in Albany County lying east of the City of Laramie and on the western slope of the Laramie Range. It supplies drinking water to many Albany County residents including to nearly 60% of those residing in the City of Laramie.

[¶4] The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act required states to adopt wellhead protection programs to "protect wellhead areas within their jurisdiction from contaminants which may have any adverse effect on the health of persons." 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7 (2018). In 1997, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) developed Wyoming’s Wellhead Protection Program which was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Wyoming’s Wellhead Protection Program provides criteria and methodologies for delineating aquifer protection areas. In 1999, a group of licensed geologists and engineers, in accordance with Wyoming’s Wellhead Protection Program, developed a Delineation Report for the Casper Aquifer Area. The Delineation Report sets forth zones and boundaries for protection of the aquifer. The DEQ approved the Delineation Report in 2000.

[¶5] In 2002, the Board adopted the Casper Aquifer Protection Plan (CAPP), which included the DEQ-approved Delineation Report.² The Board then adopted regulations intended to protect the aquifer. These regulations include an overlay zone (Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone, or APOZ) prohibiting certain land uses and restricting development in the APOZ. The Board amended the regulations in 2012 and 2023. The 2023 amendments are at issue here.³

[¶6] In their petitions for review, the Property Owners and Warren Livestock argued that the Board’s adoption of the 2023 amendments to the APOZ was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, that the amendments violated the Wyoming Constitution, and that the Board exceeded its authority when it adopted them. The district court consolidated the petitions and dismissed them for want of jurisdiction. The Property Owners and Warren Livestock filed timely appeals.

DISCUSSION

Are the APOZ amendments reviewable on direct appeal under the WAPA?

[1–6] [¶7] The pivotal issue on appeal is whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of Warren Livestock and the Property Owners. We review questions of jurisdiction and of law de novo. Elliott v. Natrona Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2023 WY 61, ¶ 7, 530 P.3d 1078, 1081 (Wyo. 2023), reh’g denied (June 27, 2023); Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Wyo. Horse Racing, LLC, 2023 WY 10, ¶ 9, 523 P.3d 901, 905 (Wyo. 2023).

Questions of jurisdiction are reviewed de novo pursuant to "the inherent power, and the duty, to address jurisdictional defects on appeal * * Pawlowski v. Pawlowski, 925 P.2d 240, 242 (Wyo. 1996) (quoting Gookin v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 826 P.2d 229, 232 (Wyo. 1992)). The absence of subject matter jurisdiction in a district court cannot be waived, and the court itself can challenge that jurisdiction at any time. Brunsvold v. State, 864 P.2d 34, 36 (Wyo. 1993). This court can have no greater jurisdiction of the subject matter than the district court. Where the district court is without jurisdiction in an administrative appeal from an agency, this court must dismiss the appeal. Scanlon v. Schrinar, 759 P.2d 1243, 1246 (Wyo. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 1131, 103 L.Ed.2d 193 (1989) (quoting Snell v. Ruppert, 541 P.2d 1042, 1048 (Wyo. 1975)).

Sheridan Ret. Partners v. City of Sheridan, 950 P.2d 554, 556 (Wyo. 1997).

A. Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions and the Legislative/Adjudicative Dichotomy

[¶8] The WAPA provides for judicial review of agency actions unless review is limited or precluded by statute or common law. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) provides:

Subject to the requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted and in the absence of any statutory or common-law provision precluding or limiting judicial review, any person aggrieved or adversely affected in fact by a final decision of an agency in a contested case, or by other agency action or inaction … is entitled to judicial review in the district court for the county in which the injury or harm for which relief is sought occurred[.]

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(a) (LexisNexis 2023) (emphasis added).

[¶9] The district court, relying on cases where we have declared that the WAPA does not apply to legislative actions or hearings, concluded that the Board’s adoption of the APOZ amendments was a legislative act and, therefore, not subject to review under the WAPA. See, e.g., Holding's Little Am. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Laramie Cnty., 670 P.2d 699, 702 (Wyo. 1983). The Property Owners and Warren Livestock contend that this conclusion was erroneous and that the issues they raised are reviewable under the WAPA.

[7] [¶10] We recognize our precedent— that legislative acts are not reviewable under the WAPA—has not been consistently applied and has in some instances insulated agency legislative actions from judicial review. Our language that legislative acts are not reviewable under the WAPA is overbroad. We take this opportunity to clarify there is no common law or general statutory exception to judicial review of agency legisla- tive actions, instead, the WAPA provisions governing review, well-understood judicial principles, and separation of power principles guide the nature and scope of our review.

B. There Is No General Common Law Exception to Judicial Review of Agency Legislative Actions

[¶11] We first addressed the interplay between legislative facts and the WAPA in ...