ELR Citation: 53 ELR 20040
No(s). 3:23-cv-00007-GFVT (E.D. Ky. Mar 7, 2023) (Tatenhove, J.)

A district court denied conservation groups' motion to intervene in a lawsuit concerning EPA's and the Army Corps of Engineers' rule defining the scope of the CWA. The groups sought intervention as of right, arguing they had "a significant, protectable interest" because they represent those who use and enjoy water resources, and that this interest is distinct from the agencies' interest. The court found that both the groups and the agencies shared the same "ultimate objective"—to uphold the rule—and that the groups failed to identify any interest the agencies would pursue that was adverse to their own. The groups also sought permissive intervention, but the court found the agencies would adequately represent the groups' interests and that intervention would prejudice the parties and burden the economy by causing undue delay. It denied the motion, but permitted the groups to file an amicus brief in support of their position to the extent they have a slightly different perspective from the agencies.