Summary
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal by an electric power industry group seeking to intervene in a Clean Water Act citizen suit against the EPA. The court held that the applicant lacked a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the remaining claims (wetlands discharges, TMDLs, and antidegradation designations) because its members did not discharge into the affected waters, and any future economic impacts were speculative. The court also affirmed the denial of permissive intervention, finding no abuse of discretion where intervention would unduly delay the environmental enforcement action. The case addresses Rule 24(a)(2) and (b) intervention standards in the context of Clean Water Act water quality standard challenges.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether FCG has a sufficient interest in the subject of the action to support intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying permissive intervention under Rule 24(b).
Holdings
- FCG does not have a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the action because it has no interest in the wetlands or ONRW issues, and its interest in TMDLs is speculative.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention because FCG's intervention would unduly delay the litigation.
Key quotations
“Before intervention as a matter of right will be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), four requirements must be met: (1) the application to intervene is timely; (2) the applicant has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair his ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest will not be represented adequately by the existing parties to the suit.” (1321)
“Where a party seeking to intervene in an action claims an interest in the very property and very transaction that is the subject of the main action, the potential stare decisis effect may supply that practical disadvantage which warrants intervention as of right.” (1322)
“Although we express no opinion as to the merits of plaintiff's claims, an action which seeks to preserve the environment from further deterioration deserves refuge from the undue delay that would result from appellant's intervention.” (1323)
Factual background
ManaSota-88 filed a citizen suit against the EPA, alleging that the EPA failed to ensure Florida's water quality standards complied with the Clean Water Act. The suit sought to compel the EPA to promulgate regulations for Florida's water quality standards, including antidegradation policies and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for noncompliant water bodies. FCG, an association of electric utilities that discharge treated wastewater into Florida waters, sought to intervene as of right or permissively. The district court denied intervention, finding FCG lacked a sufficient interest and that its interests would not be impaired. FCG appealed.
Procedural history
FCG moved to intervene in a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act and the APA. The district court denied both intervention of right and permissive intervention. FCG appealed.