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, 388 P.3d 536

In June 2013 Crook County Weed and Pest District (the District) sprayed herbicides on Bush Land Development Co./Victoria Bush’s (Bush) riparian property to control leafy spurge; Bush consented to the spraying.
After spraying, many trees died; Wyoming Department of Agriculture testing found Tordon/Rifle residues and concluded applications were not in compliance with label directions and likely caused the damage.
Bush submitted a governmental claim to the District in June 2015 alleging negligent herbicide application; the record does not show any District action on that claim.
On June 18, 2015 Bush filed an inverse condemnation action under Wyo. Stat. § 1-26-516 seeking just compensation for the damaged trees.
The District moved to dismiss, arguing the action was improper; the district court dismissed Bush’s complaint and Bush appealed.
The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed dismissal on the ground that Bush failed to exhaust the specific administrative remedy in Wyo. Stat. § 11-5-110 for landowners damaged by weed and pest district activities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bush’s inverse condemnation claim was ripe without pursuing the administrative remedy provided by § 11-5-110	Bush argued inverse condemnation (§ 1-26-516) was the appropriate and sole remedy for the damage and sued in district court	District argued a statutory administrative remedy exists under § 11-5-110 which Bush did not pursue and that exhaustion is required	Court held Bush must exhaust § 11-5-110 administrative procedures before pursuing inverse condemnation; dismissal affirmed
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies should be excused (futility, policy, or inability to obtain relief)	Bush implied administrative remedies were unnecessary or unavailable and proceeded directly to court	District asserted no record evidence of futility or impossibility of relief via the administrative process	Court held Bush did not show futility or other grounds to excuse exhaustion; administrative route required

Rissler & McMurry Co. v. State, 917 P.2d 1157 (Wyo. 1996) (takings claim not ripe without pursuing state's compensation procedures)
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1987) (inverse condemnation recognizes takings may occur without formal condemnation)
Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (ripeness and requirement to pursue available state procedures for compensation)
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1984) (if adequate state remedy exists, property owner has no federal takings claim until state remedy fails)
Cheyenne Airport Bd. v. Rogers, 707 P.2d 717 (Wyo. 1985) (takings clauses apply where governmental action effectively takes or destroys private property)
Conner v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, Natrona County, 54 P.3d 1274 (Wyo. 2002) (distinguishing eminent domain proceedings from inverse condemnation)