Full Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2026 WY 76 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2026 July 13, 2026 WARREN LIVESTOCK, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; JHD RANCH LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; PILOT PEAK LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company; and LODGEPOLE RANCH LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellants (Petitioners), S-25-0250 v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF ALBANY, WYOMING, Appellee (Respondent). THOMAS A. and KAREN R. BIENZ; LYNN MARIE BROUGHTON; BILLY E. BROWN; K.R. BROWN and D.L. MATTHEW, as Trustees of the Brown-Matthew Revocable Trust; ROBERT and MARY BROWNELL; ROBERT and KATHY L. BUCKARDT; KELLY CARTER; ANTHONY C. CLASSI S-25-0251 and LINDA D. JOHNSON; MAX D. and LORI A. COULTHARD; LESLIE A. DARNALL, Trustee of the Leslie A. Darnall Living Trust; ROBERTA M. DARNALL, Trustee of the Roberta M. Darnall Living Trust; DANNY and ROBERTA DUNLAVY; SANDRA FARWELL EIKE, Trustee of the Sandra Farwell Eike Revocable Trust; JOHN BRUCE EMBURY; CLIFFORD D. FERRIS; JESSICA ANN and RAY STUART FERTIG, III; ROBERT F. GARLAND, III, Trustee of the Robert F. Garland Revocable Trust; JD and CANDY HAMAKER; ROBERT F. and CAROLYN W. HELLING; DONALD L. JARVIS; ORY J. JOHNSON; CHERYL L. and LYLE JOHNSTON; KEITH KENNEDY; DEREK J. MANCINHO; JOHN F. NELSON and JUDITH NELSON, Trustees of the Judith E. Nelson Family Living Trust; DANIEL A. NETZEL, Trustee of the Daniel A. Netzel Revocable Trust; JON MICHAEL PIKAL and EVA SIGLINDA FERRE-PIKAL; JAMES L. and SALLY R. RICHARD; HENRY R. RICHTER and RITA ALLMARAS- RICHTER; SHAWN SANDERS and SANDERS PROPERTIES, LLC; KAREN DIANE SINGER; KIMBERLY J. STARKEY, Trustee of the Kimberly J. Starkey Revocable Trust; ROBERT J. STARKEY, JR., Trustee of the Robert J. Starkey, Jr. Revocable Trust; TIMOTHY and KIMBERLY TAYLOR; MARIANNE VINER; FRED C. and PEGGY J. WATERS; THOMAS W. WEBER, Trustee of the Thomas W. Weber Trust; ARNOLD and WANDA WILLEMS; WILLIAM A. WOLF, Trustee of the William A. Wolf Revocable Trust; LYLE HAROLD WOMACK and JANICE KAY WOMACK, Appellants (Petitioners), v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF ALBANY, WYOMING, Appellee (Respondent). Appeal from the District Court of Albany County The Honorable Misha E. Westby, Judge Representing Appellants Warren Livestock, LLC; JHD Ranch LLC; Pilot Peak LLC; and Lodgepole Ranch LLC: Mitchell H. Edwards, Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Edwards. Representing Appellants Bienz et al.: Daniel B. Frank, Frank Law Office, P.C., Meriden, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Frank. Representing Appellee Board of County Commissioners, County of Albany, Wyoming: Matthew E. Ayres, Jennifer M. Curran, Edward Kurt Britzius, Albany County & Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Ayres. Before BOOMGAARDEN, C.J., and GRAY, FENN, JAROSH, and HILL, JJ. GRAY, J., delivers the opinion of the Court; BOOMGAARDEN, C.J., files a specially concurring opinion, in which FENN, J., joins; HILL, J., files a concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume. GRAY, Justice. [¶1] In these consolidated appeals, Appellants Warren Livestock, LLC, et al. (Warren Livestock) and Thomas A. and Karen R. Bienz, et al. (Property Owners) (collectively Appellants) seek judicial review under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA) of the Albany County Board of County Commissioners’ (Board) 2023 amendments to zoning regulations known as the Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone (APOZ). The district court upheld the amendments. On appeal, Appellants contend the district court erred when it (1) refused to apply the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, (2) concluded the Board did not exceed its authority when it adopted the 2023 amendments (including the 35-acre minimum lot size), (3) found the amendments were in accordance with the law, and (4) determined the procedures for amending the overlay zone complied with the Wyoming Constitution. We conclude the APOZ amendments were within the Board’s authority and did not violate the equal protection provisions of the Wyoming Constitution. We agree informal agency legislation is subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard of review but conclude the APOZ amendments were not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, we affirm. ISSUES [¶2] We merge and rephrase Appellants’ issues as: 1. Did the Board exceed its authority when it adopted zoning regulations to protect the Casper Aquifer? 2. Do the procedures for amending the overlay zone, which are distinct from procedures used to amend zoning districts, violate Wyoming’s constitutional equal protection guarantees? 3. Does the arbitrary and capricious standard of review apply to agency legislative action? 4. Were the Board’s 2023 APOZ amendments arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law? FACTS [¶3] These consolidated cases are before this Court for a second time. As we explained in Bienz v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Cnty. of Albany, 2024 WY 102, ¶¶ 3–5, 556 P.3d 227, 230–31 (Wyo. 2024) (Bienz I), the Casper Aquifer lies east of the City of Laramie in Albany County. It supplies drinking water to many City of Laramie and Albany County 1 residents. Pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7, 1 the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) developed a Wellhead Protection Program providing criteria and methodologies for delineating aquifer protection areas. Bienz I, ¶¶ 3–4, 556 P.3d at 230–31. In 1999, a group of licensed geologists and engineers created the Delineation Report that mapped and identified the Casper Aquifer protection area (CAPA). Id. ¶ 4, 556 P.3d at 230–31. The WDEQ approved the report in 2000, and in 2002, the Board adopted the Casper Aquifer Protection Plan (CAPP) incorporating the Delineation Report. Id. ¶¶ 4–5, 556 P.3d at 231. The Board then adopted regulations to protect the aquifer. These regulations created the APOZ and within that zone prohibited certain land uses and restricted development (APOZ regulations). Id.¶ 5, 556 P.3d at 231. The Board amended the APOZ regulations in 2023. Appellants sought judicial review of those amendments. Id. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the Board’s amendments to the APOZ regulations were legislative and therefore not reviewable under the WAPA. Id. ¶ 6, 556 P.3d at 232. Appellants appealed. [¶4] In Bienz I, the sole issue before this Court was whether administrative legislative actions are reviewable on direct appeal under the WAPA. Bienz I, ¶ 2, 556 P.3d at 230. We held that the characterization of administrative action as legislative or adjudicatory did not govern reviewability and concluded that the Board’s amendments were reviewable. Id. ¶¶ 22–25, 556 P.3d at 235–36. We remanded the matter to the district court. Id. ¶ 31, 556 P.3d at 237. [¶5] While the matter was pending, the Board amended the APOZ regulations on three separate occasions. 2 On remand from Bienz I, the district court first determined which of the challenged amendments remained live and were not mooted by the amendments made to the regulations during litigation. It then addressed Appellants’ challenges to the live amendments. Those included challenges to a required 35-acre minimum lot size and a revised procedure for changing the APOZ boundaries. See ACZR, Ch.3, § 3.D.7 (APOZ minimum lot size); ACZR, Ch.3, §§ 3.D.5.b & c (APOZ boundary amendments). The district court held the Board had the statutory authority to enact the amendments; the APOZ procedure for amending the APOZ boundary did not violate Wyoming’s constitutional equal protection guarantees; and the APOZ 35-acre minimum lot size was not contrary to law or in excess of the Board’s authority. Appellants timely appeal. 1 The federal Safe Drinking Water Act provision requiring states to develop wellhead protection programs was effective on August 6, 1996. 42 U.S.C. § 300h-7 (2018). The statute has been amended over time, but none of those amendments pertain to this matter. 2 On January 16, 2024, the Board adopted an updated APOZ boundary based on the 2023 CAPP’s delineation and amended the procedures for changing the APOZ boundary. On December 17, 2024, the Board moved small wastewater facility regulations, previously contained in the APOZ regulations, to the County’s Design and Construction Standards for Small Wastewater Facilities and Regulations for Permit to Construct, Install or Modify Small Wastewater Facilities. Finally, in June 2025, the Board changed the requirements for boundary changes, inclusion and exclusion of properties within the APOZ, and the process for making boundary changes. 2 DISCUSSION I. Nature of the Board’s Action: Distinction Between Adjudicatory, Formal Legislative, and Informal Legislative Action [¶6] Throughout this opinion, we use several related terms to describe the Board’s actions including “legislative,” “adjudicatory,” and other similar distinctions. Although the WAPA and our precedent do not distinguish between formal and informal agency action, other courts do. Various opinions of this Court have referenced cases that employ the formal/informal distinction or have incorporated these terms into the vocabulary of the opinion without definition. While the formal/informal distinction is not part of our administrative law, we use all four terms—legislative, adjudicatory, formal and informal— in this opinion. Because it is helpful to understand these terms and concepts, we define them below. [¶7] Adjudicatory action applies to identifiable persons and specific situations. It resolves disputed facts or applies to particular past or present circumstances involving specific parties. Bienz I, ¶ 28, 556 P.3d at 237 (quoting Holding’s Little Am. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Laramie Cnty., 670 P.2d 699, 702 (Wyo. 1983) (citing 1 Am. Jur. 2d Administrative Law § 164)). Adjudicatory action can be formal—with a public hearing, which is characterized by indicia of the adversarial process such as sworn witnesses, cross- examination, and the introduction of evidence. Adjudicatory action can also be informal— where public comment is solicited, but witnesses are not sworn, and other aspects of the adversarial process are absent. See N. Laramie Range Found. v. Converse Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2012 WY 158, ¶ 10, 290 P.3d 1063, 1070 (Wyo. 2012) (making a distinction between informal and formal adjudicatory action). [¶8] Legislative action is distinguished from judicial power or adjudicatory action in that it “operates in the future, rather than on past transactions and circumstances, and generally, rather than particularly.” Legislative action produces “a general rule or policy which applies to a general class of individuals, interests, or situations,” whereas adjudicatory functions apply to identifiable persons and specific situations. Bienz I, ¶ 28, 556 P.3d at 237 (quoting Holding’s Little Am., 670 P.2d at 702); 1 Admin. L. & Prac. § 2:33 (3d ed.). [¶9] Some cases we rely upon—or that our precedent has previously relied upon—draw further distinction between formal and informal legislative action. Formal legislative action (formal rulemaking) involves the creation of a general rule or policy through trial- like, on-the-record procedures. Under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), these procedures are set forth in 5 U.S.C. §§ 556–557. Wyoming does not have a parallel to the federal provisions for legislative or rulemaking action, and such formal procedures are rare and generally considered inappropriate and counterproductive for legislative-type 3 decisions. 1 Admin. L. & Prac. § 2:33 (3d ed.); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 16-3-101 through - 115. [¶10] Informal legislative action (informal rulemaking) is the norm for legislative-type agency or local government rulemaking. It operates prospectively and produces a general rule or policy applicable to a broad class of persons, properties, or situations, but uses streamlined notice-and-comment procedures rather than trial-type hearings. These procedures typically include notice, opportunity for public participation (usually written comments), publication of the final action, and a concise statement of reasons. 1 Admin. L. & Prac. § 2:33 (3d ed.). [¶11] Under Wyoming law, the amendments at issue constitute legislative action. We neither draw a formal/informal distinction nor imply that such distinction is required. II. Did the Board exceed its authority when it adopted zoning regulations to protect the Casper Aquifer? [¶12] We will “[h]old unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be . . . [i]n excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right . . . .” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(C). Appellants contend the Board exceeded its statutory authority when it enacted the 2023 APOZ amendments. They assert that environmental regulatory authority rests only with the WDEQ, and the zoning authority delegated to counties does not allow counties to regulate the use of land for the purpose of protecting the quality of the State’s air, land, and water resources. [¶13] The limited role of counties in the administration of government guides our analysis. See Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Laramie Cnty., 2020 WY 41, ¶ 12, 460 P.3d 251, 256 (Wyo. 2020). Counties are political subdivisions of the state, “created to aid in the administration of government.” Id. (quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Sublette Cnty. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2002 WY 151, ¶ 22, 55 P.3d 714, 721 (Wyo. 2002)). Counties “have no sovereignty independent from that of the state, and the only power available to them is the power that has been delegated to them by the state.” Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty., ¶ 12, 460 P.3d at 256–57 (quoting Seherr-Thoss v. Teton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2014 WY 82, ¶ 24, 329 P.3d 936, 946 (Wyo. 2014)); Carter v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Laramie Cnty., 518 P.2d 142, 144 (Wyo. 1974) (“[T]he legislature may delegate a part of its power over local subjects to municipal corporations, county boards, and other public bodies . . . for the purpose of local self-government.”). Accordingly, counties have only “those powers expressly granted by the constitution or statutory law or reasonably implied from powers granted.” Bd. of Trs. of Laramie Cnty., ¶ 12, 460 P.3d at 257 (quoting Ford v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Converse Cnty., 924 P.2d 91, 95 (Wyo. 1996)). Those powers include: 4 First, those granted by express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes not simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable, substantial doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the [county], and the power is denied. Dillon on Municipal Corp., 5th ed., [§ 237.] The rule of strict construction does not apply to the mode adopted by the [county] to carry into effect powers expressly or plainly granted, where the mode is not limited or prescribed by the legislature, and is left to the discretion of the [county] authorities. In such a case the usual test of validity of the act of a [county] is whether it is reasonable. Id. § 239. Id. ¶ 12, 460 P.3d at 257 (quoting Schoeller v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Park Cnty., 568 P.2d 869, 876 (Wyo. 1977)). With these principles in mind, we examine whether the Board had the authority to enact zoning regulations to protect the Casper Aquifer. [¶14] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201(a) grants zoning authority to counties to promote public health, safety, morals and general welfare: To promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the county, each board of county commissioners may regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings and structures and the use, condition of use or occupancy of lands for residence, recreation, agriculture, industry, commerce, public use and other purposes in the unincorporated area of the county. However, nothing in W.S. 18-5-201 through 18-5-208 shall be construed to contravene any zoning authority of any incorporated city or town. No zoning resolution or plan shall prevent any use or occupancy reasonably necessary to the extraction or production of the mineral resources in or under any lands subject thereto. No board of county commissioners shall require that a land use or physical development be consistent with a local land use plan unless the applicable provisions of the local land use plan have been incorporated into the local zoning regulations. Nothing in W.S. 18-5-201 through 18-5- 208 shall be construed to allow any board of county commissioners, through the establishment of minimum lot size requirements or otherwise, to prevent residential or agricultural uses authorized for land divisions that are exempt from 5 subdivision requirements pursuant to W.S. 18-5-303(a)(i). No zoning resolution or plan shall regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings and structures and the use, condition of use or occupancy of lands for the use of a private school as defined in W.S. 21-4-101(a)(iii) in any manner different from a public school . . . . Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201 (LexisNexis 2025) (emphasis added). This is a “broad grant of authority.” Wilson Advisory Comm. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2012 WY 163, ¶¶ 26–27, 292 P.3d 855, 862 (Wyo. 2012). This broad grant of authority derives from the “police power inherent in government, the constitution, and statutes passed pursuant to it.” 1 E.C. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice § 3-1 (4th ed. 2008). It includes both the express power to enact zoning ordinances, and the “implied power to do those things which would make its express power to regulate and restrict the use of buildings and land in unincorporated areas of the county meaningful.” Snake River Venture [v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, Teton Cnty.], 616 P.2d [744,] 752 [(Wyo.1980)] (quoting Schoeller v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Park Cnty., 568 P.2d 869, 874 (Wyo. 1977)). However, “the zoning authority of counties and municipalities is limited to that derived from state statute, and county actions inconsistent with the statutes may mandate reversal.” Northfork [Citizens For Responsible Dev. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Park Cnty., 2010 WY 41], ¶ 23 n.5, 228 P.3d [838,] 847 n.5 [(Wyo. 2010)]. Wilson Advisory Comm., ¶ 27, 292 P.3d at 862 (emphasis added). [¶15] Albany County has “broad authority to shape its destiny, control its growth, and determine how best to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of its citizens.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Teton Cnty. v. Crow, 2003 WY 40, ¶ 42, 65 P.3d 720, 734 (Wyo. 2003); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201; see also 4 Patricia E. Salkin, American Law of Zoning § 36:7 (5th ed. 2026) (“Zoning has long been a tool of local governments in regulating the local health and quality of life, and it has been reinvented to focus on environmental quality. Hence, the zoning power has been used to control the location of pollution sources, to set minimum lot sizes for the purposes of aquifer protection, and to establish environmental quality districts that prevented erosion and landslides.”); 83 Am. Jur. 2d Zoning and Planning § 60 (2026) (“The protection of the environment, maintaining an ecological balance, water quality, and wildlife are all valid objects of the exercise of a zoning authority’s police power.”); Salamar Builders Corp. v. Tuttle, 275 N.E.2d 585, 589 6 (N.Y. 1971) (“it is certain that the prospect of water pollution from the inadequate spacing of septic tanks in such rocky and hilly terrain provided more than adequate reason for the upzoning”); Timber Trails Assocs. v. Plan. & Zoning Comm’n of Town of Sherman, 916 A.2d 99, 111–12 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007) (affirming zoning amendments that “lower the density of development, maintain the rural character of the town and protect the area’s watersheds to sustain high water quality” and “protect the quality of drinking water in areas including neighboring watersheds,” concluding “the amendments [that] regulate the size and land composition of residential lots . . . are consistent with the requirement . . . that zoning regulations ‘promote health and the general welfare’”). [¶16] The word “health” means “the condition of being sound in body, mind, or spirit[;] . . . the general condition of the body,” Health, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/health (last visited June 30, 2026); the word “safety” means “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss,” Safety, Merriam-Webster, supra; and, the word “welfare” means “the state of faring or doing well: thriving or successful progress in life: a state characterized esp. by good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity.” Crow, ¶ 42, 65 P.3d at 734 (citing Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 2594 (1986)). There is no doubt that protection of the Casper Aquifer and its water quality promotes the public health, safety, and general welfare of the county. See id. (holding that Teton County’s zoning regulations enacted to promote “rural” “western” “character” served the welfare of its citizens and were within the zoning authority delegated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-201(a)). [¶17] We have held that the broad authority conferred under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5- 201(a) “is limited by state statute, and the general grant of power to [counties] to adopt zoning laws in the interest of public welfare does not permit the local governing bodies to override the state law and the policies supporting it.” Seherr-Thoss, ¶ 24, 329 P.3d at 946; see also Teton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Bd. of Land Comm’rs, 2025 WY 48, ¶ 18, 567 P.3d 675, 681 (Wyo. 2025). Appellants argue that the WDEQ has exclusive authority to regulate water quality in the state, and county zoning regulations to protect the aquifer conflict with that authority. [¶18] The Wyoming Constitution grants “general supervision of the waters of the state and of the officers connected with its distribution” to the state engineer. Wyo. Const. art. 8, § 5. The legislature granted the WDEQ the authority to promulgate “rules, regulations, standards and permit systems to promote the purposes of” the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act (the Act). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-302(a). Section 35-11-102 states the purpose of the Act: Policy and purpose. Whereas pollution of the air, water and land of this state will imperil public health and welfare, create public or private 7 nuisances, be harmful to wildlife, fish and aquatic life, and impair domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational and other beneficial uses; it is hereby declared to be the policy and purpose of this act to enable the state to prevent, reduce and eliminate pollution; to preserve, and enhance the air, water and reclaim the land of Wyoming; to plan the development, use, reclamation, preservation and enhancement of the air, land and water resources of the state; to preserve and exercise the primary responsibilities and rights of the state of Wyoming; to retain for the state the control over its air, land and water and to secure cooperation between agencies of the state, agencies of other states, interstate agencies, and the federal government in carrying out these objectives. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-102 (LexisNexis 2025) (emphasis added). 3 3 The statute envisions cooperation with local entities, including counties and municipalities. For example, it states, [WDEQ] rules, regulations, standards and permit systems shall prescribe: (i) Water quality standards specifying the maximum short- term and long-term concentrations of pollution, the minimum permissible concentrations of dissolved oxygen and other matter, and the permissible temperatures of the waters of the state; (ii) Effluent standards and limitations specifying the maximum amounts or concentrations of pollution and wastes which may be discharged into the waters of the state; (iii) Standards for the issuance of permits for construction, installation, modification or operation of any public water supply and sewerage system, subdivision water supply, treatment works, disposal system or other facility, capable of causing or contributing to pollution; (iv) Standards for the definition of technical competency and the certification of operating personnel for community water systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems, sewerage systems, treatment works and disposal systems and for determining that the operation shall be under the supervision of certified personnel. Prior to recommending these standards to the director, the administrator shall consult with affected municipalities, water and sewer districts, counties and treatment operators; (v) Standards for the issuance of permits as authorized pursuant to section 402(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)] as amended in 1972, and as it may be hereafter amended; . . . 8 [¶19] To promote the purpose of the Act, the WDEQ promulgated water quality standards, including standards for protecting groundwater from surface and subsurface discharges. WDEQ Water Quality Rules (Rules), ch. 8, § 4. It also set standards for regulating and permitting septic systems, Rules, ch. 25, and for subdivision water supply and sewage systems. Rules, ch. 23, § 3(c) (requiring subdivisions to “meet or exceed the applicable [water quality] standards”). Chapter 8, § 3(a) of the Rules recognizes “[a]ll waters, including Groundwaters of the State . . . are the property of the State; and control of the beneficial use of waters of the State resides with the Wyoming State Engineer.” This section also states “[p]rotection shall be afforded all underground water . . . . Water being used for a purpose identified in W.S. 35-11-102 and 103(c)(i) shall be protected for its intended use and uses for which it is suitable.” Rules, ch. 8, § 3(c). [¶20] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-304(a)(iii) provides for delegation to “municipalities, water and sewer districts or counties” the “authority to enforce and administer within their boundaries the provisions of W.S. 35-11-301(a)(iii) and (v)” and requires the “local governmental entity” to establish “rules, regulations and standards for the issuance of permits . . . which . . . shall be at least as stringent as those promulgated by the state under W.S. 35-11-302(a)(iii)[.]” 4 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-306(c) requires counties to send subdivision permit applications to the WDEQ for its review of the “adequacy of the proposed sewage system and proposed water supply system” but allows the WDEQ to delegate “authority to the county to review any reports or studies . . . directed at determining the safety and adequacy of the proposed sewage or water supply system contained as part of a subdivision application.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-306(c)(ii). (ix) Standards for housed facilities where swine are confined, fed and maintained for a total of forty-five (45) consecutive days or more in any twelve (12) month period and the feedlot or facility is designed to confine an equivalent of one thousand (1,000) or more animal units. If any county adopts a land use plan or zoning resolution which imposes stricter requirements than those found in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, the county requirements shall prevail. . . . (xi) Standards for subdivision applications submitted to the department under W.S. 18-5-306. The administrator shall consult with county commissioners and the state engineer’s office in developing standards to recommend to the director. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-302(a)(i)–(v), (ix), (xi) (LexisNexis 2025) (emphasis added). 4 Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-11-304, the WDEQ delegated authority to permit and enforce small wastewater permits to Albany County. In addition, Wyoming’s Source Water Assessment and Protection Program (SWPP) allows local communities to develop Source Water Protection Plans to protect drinking water and incorporates Wyoming’s Wellhead Protection (WHP) Program, a voluntary program under which local WHP plans are developed and can be reviewed by the WDEQ. 9 [¶21] Warren Livestock argues the 2023 APOZ amendments, including the 35-acre minimum lot size requirement, supplant WDEQ authority over the review of subdivision applications as they relate to water quality and potential septic system impact on water quality. Warren Livestock cites Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-306(a)(iv)(C) and Rules, ch. 23. Section 18-5-306 sets forth the minimum information that must be submitted for water and sewage systems before a subdivision permit may be granted. It provides: (a) The board [of county commissioners] shall require . . . the following information to be submitted with each application for a subdivision permit . . . : . . . The information requirements include: (iv) A study evaluating the sewage system proposed for the subdivision and the adequacy and safety of the system. (A) Identification of the type of sewage system to serve the subdivision . . . ; (B) . . . a report submitted by the subdivider as to the adequacy and safety of the proposed sewage system. . . . (C) Where individual on-lot sewage systems are proposed by the subdivider, a report submitted by the subdivider shall document the safety and adequacy of the proposed on-lot sewage systems including the following: (I) Adequacy of separation distances; (II) Separation of drainfield relative to groundwater and impervious soils; (III) Suitability of the subdivision soil conditions; (IV) Suitable topography; (V) Proposed population density; 10 (VI) Protection of groundwater uses; and (VII) Watersheds located on or draining into, under or over the proposed subdivision. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-306(a)(iv)(A)–(C). The Rules set out minimum standards for subdivision sewage and water supply systems. Rules, ch. 23, §§ 7–8. They require WDEQ to review subdivision applications for proof of compliance with discharge and water quality regulations. See, e.g., Rules, ch. 23, § 4 (requiring submittal of “the portions of [the subdivision] application containing evaluations of the proposed sewage system and water supply system to the [WDEQ] for review of the safety and adequacy of the proposed sewage system and proposed water supply system”). The 2023 APOZ amendments do not conflict with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-306, WDEQ rules governing discharge, water quality rules, or application review. [¶22] Nothing in the Wyoming Constitution, the Act, or the WDEQ regulations limits county authority to zone for public health, safety, or general welfare, including protection of the Casper Aquifer. See River Springs Liab. Co. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Teton, 899 P.2d 1329, 1336 (Wyo. 1995) (“[I]f the state has the authority to regulate, but excludes certain instances from its regulation, the local authority may invoke its regulatory power. We recognize the authority of the Board to regulate these activities so long as regulation by the county does not conflict with a regulation by the state.”). [¶23] Both the Act and WDEQ rules expressly anticipate local participation in the protection of public water resources. The Act authorizes delegation to local authorities, and the WDEQ rules allow local authorities to enact permitting standards “at least as stringent” as those of the State. Consistent with this cooperative framework, WDEQ’s Water Quality Division “encourage[d] Albany County to consider implementing additional aquifer protection measures that may help address water quality concerns.” The 2023 APOZ amendments do not conflict with, override, or supplant any areas of exclusive WDEQ control, including water quality standards or discharge permits. In particular, the 35-acre minimum lot size does not conflict with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 18-5-306 or Chapter 23 of the Rules. Section 18-5-306 and the Rules establish minimum standards and procedures for water supply and sewage systems in approving subdivision applications. The standards are separate from and do not preempt land use restrictions—such as minimum lot size— within the APOZ. See Seherr-Thoss, ¶ 24, 329 P.3d at 946. [¶24] We conclude the Board possessed the authority to adopt the 2023 APOZ amendments, including the 35-acre minimum lot size requirement, to protect the Casper 11 Aquifer. See River Springs, 899 P.2d at 1336; Salkin, supra, at § 36:7; 83 Am. Jur. 2d Zoning and Planning § 60. III. Do the procedures for amending the overlay zone, which are distinct from procedures used to amend zoning districts, violate Wyoming’s constitutional equal protection guarantees? [¶25] Warren Livestock contends that the Board’s adoption of rules for amending an overlay zone violates the Wyoming Constitution’s equal protection guarantees for two reasons. [¶26] First, Warren Livestock asserts the 2023 APOZ amendments created two different procedures for amending the boundary of the APOZ, thereby violating equal protection. The first procedure allowed inclusion or exclusion of property based upon the CAPP and its updates, and the second allowed “[p]reviously surveyed parcels” to be excluded from the APOZ if there was “clear and convincing evidence” of at least 75 feet of undisturbed Satanka Shale overlying the Casper Formation. APOZ § 3.D.5.b-c. The 2024 and 2025 amendments to the APOZ regulations have eliminated the disputed language. 5 Now any parcel can seek exclusion based on the 75-foot Satanka Shale thickness test, without the “previously surveyed” limitation or the heightened “clear and convincing” burden of proof. Because the 2024 and 2025 amendments to the APOZ regulations have eliminated the challenged provisions and, with them, the controversy, Warren Livestock’s first argument is moot. “[C]ourts will not consume their time dealing with moot questions.” Powder River Basin Res. Council v. Wyo. Dep’t of Env’t Quality, 2020 WY 127, ¶¶ 10, 18, 473 P.3d 294, 297, 299 (Wyo. 2020) (citing Matter of Birkholz, 2019 WY 19, ¶ 2, 434 P.3d 1102, 1103–04 (Wyo. 2019) (a case is moot when “the determination of an issue will have no practical effect on the existing controversy,” and the court will dismiss the appeal if “events occur during the pendency of [the] appeal that . . . make determination of the issues unnecessary” (quoting In re SNK, 2005 WY 30, ¶ 6, 108 P.3d 836, 838 (Wyo. 2005)))). None of the recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine apply. See Operation Save Am. v. City of Jackson, 2012 WY 51, ¶¶ 22–23, 275 P.3d 438, 448–49 (Wyo. 2012). [¶27] Next, Warren Livestock argues an equal protection violation arises from the 2023 APOZ amendment’s procedures for APOZ boundary changes. These procedures differ from those required to amend an Albany County Zoning Resolution (ACZR) zoning district. We will hold unlawful any agency action “found to be . . . [c]ontrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(B). Wyoming’s constitution requires a law to operate alike upon all persons or property under 5 Currently, the APOZ boundary can be amended “based upon modifications to the CAPA as part of revisions to the CAPP” following legislative zoning district amendment procedures or based on “the location of at least seventy-five (75) feet of und