Exemption of Temporary Use Permits on State Trust Lands from County Land-Use Regulations

Introduction

In Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners (2025 WY 48), the Wyoming Supreme Court confronted the question whether county land‐use and development regulations (the “Teton County LDRs”) may be enforced against the State Board of Land Commissioners (“State Board”) and its permittees when those permittees hold Temporary Use Permits (“TUPs”) to operate on state trust lands. The controversy arose after Teton County issued abatement notices to two permittees—Basecamp Hospitality, LLC and Wilson Investments, LLC—demanding compliance with local zoning rules. The State Board sued for a declaration that neither it nor its TUP-holders are subject to county zoning when operating under a TUP. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State Board, and on April 24, 2025 the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed.

Key issues:

Does sovereign immunity bar a county from contesting its power to enforce zoning on state lands?
Are TUPs subject to county land‐use regulations when issued by the State Board?
What statutory framework governs the interplay between state trust‐land management and county zoning authority?

Parties:

Appellant/Defendant: Teton County Board of County Commissioners
Appellee/Plaintiff: State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners

Summary of the Judgment

The Wyoming Supreme Court held that:

The action to declare county authority and enjoin overreach did not implicate sovereign immunity.
Statutory interpretation of the state trust‐land leasing statutes (Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 36-2-107(a), 36-5-114(d)) and the county zoning grant (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201) demonstrates that the legislature deliberately required local zoning compliance only in the context of long-term leases, not TUPs.
Accordingly, when operating under a TUP, the State Board and its permittees on state trust lands are not subject to Teton County’s land use and development regulations.

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the State Board.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court relied on principles drawn from both federal and Wyoming jurisprudence:

Simons v. Laramie Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. One, 741 P.2d 1116 (Wyo. 1987) and Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass’n v. State, 645 P.2d 1163 (Wyo. 1982): Established that sovereign immunity does not apply to inter-agency declaratory or injunctive actions to define statutory authority.
Campbell Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Wyo. Horse Racing, LLC, 2023 WY 10: Reminded that counties possess only those powers the legislature delegates, and local ordinances may not override state law.
Parker Land & Cattle Co. v. Wyo. Game & Fish Comm’n, 845 P.2d 1040 (Wyo. 1993): Clarified “clear and unambiguous” statutory language.
Spreeman v. State, 2012 WY 88: Applied expressio unius to decline reading unenumerated requirements into a statute.
Sarasota Drs. Hosp., Inc. v. Sarasota Cnty., 396 So. 3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024): Analogous out-of-state authority on county zoning over state agencies and sovereign immunity limitations when agencies sue each other.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s decision turned on plain‐language interpretation of three related statutory schemes:

State Board Authority Over Trust Lands (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 36-2-107(a))
Grants the State Board broad rule‐making power “in the direction, control, disposition and care of all state lands.”
Long-Term Leasing of State Lands (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 36-5-114(d))
Requires that rules for long‐term leases include provisions mandating compliance with “all applicable land use planning and zoning laws.” No mention of TUPs appears in § 36-5-114.
County Zoning Authority (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201(a))
Authorizes counties to regulate “unincorporated area[s]” but does not specifically include or exclude state lands; must be read in pari materia with the state trust‐land statutes.

Applying the cardinal rules of statutory construction, the Court concluded:

The express requirement in § 36-5-114(d) applies only to long-term leases—if the legislature intended to subject all State Board uses (including TUPs) to local zoning, it would have said so.
Reading § 18-5-201 to cover TUP operations would render § 36-5-114(d) superfluous in its zoning‐compliance requirement for leases.
The legislative scheme grants the State Board exclusive authority to issue TUPs on trust land free of county land-use regulations, except where the legislature explicitly imported those regulations into a lease regime.

Impact

This ruling clarifies the boundary between state trust‐land management and local zoning power:

State Board permittees under TUPs will not need to secure county zoning approvals or face abatement actions—streamlining recreational, agricultural, or other short-term uses.
Counties retain full zoning authority over private land and over state trust lands where the State Board chooses a long-term lease structure subject to § 36-5-114(d).
Future disputes will turn on the legal nature of a permit or lease (temporary vs. long-term) rather than ambiguous notions of “proprietary” or “governmental” functions.
The decision underscores strict statutory construction in local/state power conflicts, reinforcing that counties cannot expand their zoning reach beyond legislative grants.
Other states with similar dual trust-land and county zoning schemes may look to this decision for persuasive authority on the limits of local power when state agencies employ temporary permit regimes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Temporary Use Permit (TUP): A short-term authorization (often under one year or seasonal) allowing a party to use state land for specified purposes (recreation, camping, events) without the formalities of a long-term lease.
Long-Term Lease: An agreement granting exclusive rights to use state land for up to 75 years, typically requiring compliance with local zoning under § 36-5-114(d).
Land Use and Development Regulations (LDRs): County‐enacted ordinances governing permissible uses, densities, building locations, environmental safeguards, and other development standards within unincorporated areas.
Sovereign Immunity: The doctrine that the state (or an agency) cannot be sued without consent. Here, the Court held it does not bar one state agency from seeking clarifying relief against another.
Expressio Unius: A rule of construction meaning “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others.” Because the legislature specified zoning compliance for long-term leases but not for TUPs, TUPs are excluded.
In Pari Materia: Statutes dealing with the same subject must be read together harmoniously to effectuate legislative intent.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Teton County Board of County Commissioners v. State of Wyoming, Board of Land Commissioners establishes the clear legal principle that state trust-land Temporary Use Permits are exempt from county land‐use and development regulations unless the legislature explicitly incorporates those regulations into a statutory leasing framework. The ruling preserves the State Board’s broad authority to manage trust lands with flexible permit tools while reaffirming that counties may not extend their zoning reach beyond legislative grant. This decision will guide future trust-land management, local planning, and the delineation of state versus county regulatory spheres.