Beyond Formal Board Action: Agent-Authorization Liability in Wyoming Inverse Condemnation

A Comprehensive Commentary on Thomas Hamann v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District, 2025 WY 75 (Wyo. 2025)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Wyoming’s decision in Hamann v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID) clarifies how inverse condemnation liability may attach to a governmental entity for acts of its employees or agents undertaken without a formal, publicly-voted board directive. The ruling rejects the notion that public-meeting “actions” (as defined by Wyoming’s Public Meetings Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-4-402) are the sole avenue through which a district can authorize conduct giving rise to takings. Instead, it embraces a more practical agency-law approach, focusing on whether the employee’s conduct was an intended or foreseeable result of authorized government action and within the employee’s delegated duties.

The case arose from a long-simmering dispute between ranch owner Thomas Hamann and the Heart Mountain Irrigation District over access along “Lateral 79,” an irrigation canal bordering Hamann’s property. When HMID’s manager, Randy Watts, used a track-hoe to remove Hamann’s fencing—and allegedly struck Hamann with the bucket—Hamann sued HMID for inverse condemnation and Watts for constitutional torts. The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding HMID could not be liable because its board never formally authorized Watts’s fence-removal. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed on the inverse-condemnation claim, paving the way for trial.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court (Boomgaarden, C.J.) held there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Watts’s actions were authorized—explicitly or implicitly—by HMID, thereby precluding summary judgment.
• It rejected HMID’s argument that only a board “action” taken in a publicly noticed meeting can create agency liability for inverse condemnation.
• The Court articulated a new interpretive rule: inverse condemnation under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-516 can arise when an employee’s conduct is “an intended or foreseeable result of authorized government action,” even absent a formal vote.
• The case was remanded for trial, with the Court noting additional factual issues (e.g., whether the damaging activity occurred on “adjoining land” as § 1-26-516 requires).

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Bush Land Development Co. v. Crook County Weed & Pest Control District, 2017 WY 12
   Reinforced the distinction between formal eminent-domain takings and inverse condemnation. The Court borrowed Bush’s explanation to anchor why a statutory inverse-condemnation remedy must remain available when the government sidesteps formal procedures.
2. Cheyenne Airport Board v. Rogers, 707 P.2d 717 (Wyo. 1985)
   Quoted for the proposition that inverse condemnation often involves “government or those acting under governmental auspices” who physically occupy land.
3. Waid v. WYDOT, 996 P.2d 18 (Wyo. 2000)
   Interpreted § 1-26-516’s “adjoining land” language; the Court flagged Waid as potentially relevant on remand, suggesting factual development is needed on where the damaging activities occurred.
4. Statutes: Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-26-516 (inverse condemnation); § 16-4-402 & ‑403 (Public Meetings Act) and § 41-7-210 (Irrigation-district eminent-domain powers).
5. Agency and Tort Cases: Elsner v. Campbell Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 2025 WY 37; Peterson v. Mertain Health, 2022 WY 54 – cited to show scope-of-authority questions are fact driven.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The pivotal interpretive move was distinguishing between

“the open-meetings definition of ‘action’ … and the broader concept of authorization that underlies agency liability.”

Key steps in the reasoning:

1. Purpose of § 1-26-516 – The statute is designed to compensate owners when government forgoes formal condemnation; thus, tying liability to formal votes would defeat the statute’s remedial function.
2. Agency Principles – Governmental entities “can act only through their agents.” If an employee acts within delegated duties and the result was intended or foreseeable, the entity may be liable, regardless of whether a public-meeting “action” exists.
3. Fact-Intensive Authorization – HMID’s bylaws confer broad “general charge” to its manager. Deposition evidence suggested Watts regularly exercised discretion and may have received ad-hoc approval from the board president and counsel. This conflicting testimony generated triable issues.
4. Practical Policy Concerns – Accepting HMID’s ultra-narrow view would incentivize agencies to avoid public meetings, contrary to the Open Meetings Act’s transparency purpose.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

• Broader Liability Exposure – Wyoming public entities can no longer rely on the absence of a formal vote to evade takings liability when employees physically interfere with private land.
• Operational Practices – Boards may tighten delegation language, institute explicit written authorizations, and enhance employee training to avoid accidental takings.
• Litigation Strategy – Plaintiffs in future inverse-condemnation suits will emphasize evidence of implied or customary authority and foreseeability, rather than hunting for formal resolutions.
• Doctrinal Clarification – The case blends Wyoming takings jurisprudence with traditional agency principles, aligning state law more closely with federal takings cases that examine whether the conduct is “fairly attributable” to the government.
• Open Meetings Act Interplay – By refusing to let the Act serve as a shield, the Court reinforced its transparency objectives, signaling that violations or non-use of the Act may carry consequence rather than grant immunity.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Inverse Condemnation

A lawsuit by a landowner seeking payment when the government effectively “takes” or damages property without initiating formal eminent-domain proceedings.

Authorized vs. Formal Board “Action”

“Action” in the Public Meetings Act requires a publicly noticed vote. “Authorization” for agency liability, however, can be broader—arising from delegated duties, custom, verbal instructions, or implicit approval.

Adjoining-Land Requirement (§ 1-26-516)

To qualify, the damaging government activity must occur on land next to (i.e., adjoining) the plaintiff’s parcel. If the activity occurs on the plaintiff’s own land, other takings theories may apply but § 1-26-516’s text is literal.

Scope of Employment / Agent’s Authority

In tort and agency law, an employer is liable when the employee’s conduct is within the “scope” of assigned duties—work they are employed to perform—even if the specific act was misguided or negligent.

5. Conclusion

Hamann establishes a significant principle: a Wyoming governmental entity may face inverse-condemnation liability for the intended or foreseeable consequences of its employee’s authorized conduct, even absent a formal board vote. The decision harmonizes statutory takings remedies with practical governance and agency principles, preventing public bodies from weaponizing procedural technicalities to sidestep constitutional compensation obligations. Going forward, courts will scrutinize the real-world relationship between boards and their staff, while public entities must reconcile broad managerial discretion with the need for clear, lawful boundaries on property-affecting activities.