State v. Black Hills Power, Inc., a South Dakota corporation, 354 P.3d 83

A wildfire (Oil Creek Fire) near Newcastle, WY in 2012 burned ~61,000 acres and threatened ~9,857 acres of State-owned land; the State incurred ~$5,213,000 in suppression costs paid from the State Emergency Fire Suppression Account.
Weston County requested State assistance under Wyo. Stat. §§ 36-1-401 to -404; the State Forester approved payment from the emergency account.
Private landowners sued Black Hills Power (BHP) in federal court alleging BHP negligently caused the fire; the State intervened and sought recovery of suppression costs and damages to State property.
BHP moved to dismiss the State’s claim for suppression-cost recovery, arguing Wyoming common law does not permit a governmental entity to recoup public-service costs absent statutory authorization.
The Wyoming Supreme Court certified three questions: (1) whether the State can recover suppression/emergency costs from a negligent party generally; (2) whether recovery is allowed when State lands were among those protected; and (3) if so, whether recovery is limited (e.g., prorated by acres).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. May the State generally recover fire suppression/emergency service costs from a negligent party?	State contends it may recover costs it paid from the emergency account.	BHP argues no common‑law recovery exists; legislative authorization is required.	No — Wyoming adopts the free public services doctrine; absent statute, government may not generally recover such costs.
2. Is there an exception when the State’s own lands were among those protected?	State argues exception applies when government incurs expenses to protect its own property.	BHP disputes that State designation of lands creates an automatic right to recovery and may argue obligations to the county required fighting the fire regardless.	Yes — exception recognized: government may recover reasonable expenditures made to protect its own property.
3. If recovery for State‑land protection is allowed, is recovery limited as a matter of law (e.g., prorated by acreage)?	State seeks full recovery of costs attributable to protecting State lands.	BHP seeks limitation or apportionment (e.g., pro rata) and contests allocation and whether State actually incurred costs specifically to protect State property.	No fixed legal limitation; extent and apportionment are factual issues for the trier of fact.

City of Flagstaff v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 719 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1983) (articulates free public services doctrine barring recovery of public‑service costs absent statute)
District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (refuses judicial reallocation of tax‑supported emergency costs; leaves policy to legislature)
United States v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 547 F.2d 1101 (10th Cir. 1977) (recognizes government can recover expenses to protect its own property)
Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. United States, 139 F.2d 632 (4th Cir. 1944) (expenditure to save property is recoverable as damages)
City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2004) (discusses municipal cost‑recovery rule)
County of Erie v. Colgan Air, Inc., 711 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2013) (applies free public services reasoning to reject municipal recovery of emergency costs)