Bush Land Development Company, a Wyoming Corporation, and Victoria Bush, as the President and Director of Bush Land Development Company, and In Her Individual Capacity v. Crook County Weed & Pest Control District, Crook County Weed & Pest Control District Board of Directors, Randall Otwell, In His Official Capacity, Lee Hauber, In His Official Capacity, Leroy Curren, In His Official Capacity, David Moline, In His Official Capacity, Frank Hawken, In His Official Capacity, Crook County Weed & Pest Control District Supervisor, Bob Gilbert, In His Official and Individual Capacities, Chase Wadley, In His Official and Individual Capacities, Gavin Holland, In His Official and Individual Capacities, and Kirk Broderson, In His Official and Individual Capacities, 2017 WY 12

In June 2013 Crook County Weed and Pest Control District (the District) sprayed Bush Land Development Company’s property to control leafy spurge; Bush agreed to the free spraying.
After spraying, many riparian trees on Bush’s property died; Wyoming Department of Agriculture testing found Tordon/Rifle residues and concluded label violations and application in risky conditions likely caused the damage.
Bush sent a governmental claim to the District in June 2015 alleging negligent herbicide application, then filed an inverse condemnation suit under Wyo. Stat. § 1-26-516 on June 18, 2015; record shows no administrative resolution by the District.
The District moved to dismiss, arguing inverse condemnation was inappropriate because a statutory administrative remedy under Wyo. Stat. § 11-5-110 exists for weed and pest district damages; the district court dismissed Bush’s complaint.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on the ground that Bush failed to exhaust the administrative remedy provided by § 11-5-110 before pursuing inverse condemnation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bush was required to exhaust administrative remedies under § 11-5-110 before bringing an inverse condemnation claim	Bush contended inverse condemnation under § 1-26-516 was the proper and only remedy for the alleged taking/damage	District argued § 11-5-110 provides a specific administrative claim/hearing process for landowners damaged by weed and pest district activities that must be used first	Court held Bush must pursue the § 11-5-110 administrative remedy before an inverse condemnation action; dismissal affirmed
Whether exceptions to exhaustion (futility, policy, inability to obtain relief) applied	Bush implicitly argued administrative route was unnecessary or unavailable by proceeding directly to court	District asserted no evidence of futility or impossibility of relief through the administrative process	Court found no record support for any exhaustion exception and declined to excuse exhaustion

Rissler & McMurry Co. v. State, 917 P.2d 1157 (Wyo. 1996) (takings claim not ripe until state-provided compensation procedures are pursued)
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (Fifth Amendment ripeness requires pursuit of state procedures for compensation)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1987) (inverse condemnation recognizes takings can occur without formal condemnation)
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1984) (if state provides adequate compensation process, owner has no federal takings claim until that process is exhausted)
Cheyenne Airport Bd. v. Rogers, 707 P.2d 717 (Wyo. 1985) (takings clauses apply where governmental action effectively takes or destroys private property interests)
Conner v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, Natrona County, 54 P.3d 1274 (Wyo. 2002) (distinction between eminent domain and inverse condemnation)
Smith v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Park County, 291 P.3d 947 (Wyo. 2013) (§ 1-26-516 creates an inverse condemnation cause of action)
Miller v. Campbell County, 945 F.2d 348 (10th Cir. 1991) (federal takings claim not ripe without pursuing state inverse condemnation)
Schanzenbach v. Town of La Barge, 706 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2013) (federal takings claim unripe where state inverse condemnation not pursued)