behalf of the pellets and proposed intervenors southern utah wilderness alliance and the wilderness society may please the court applying this court's liberal view of the intervention standard on rule twenty four the court sh reverse the district court's ruling to nicely with intervention in this case for two key reasons first has a legally protected interest in the scope of the rights of way at issue that may be imperative for intervention is denied second the united states may not adequately represent citizens in the case which concerns the scope of three rights of way originally found within the original boundary of the grand staircase escalade to the national monument over talk of referred to twenty four a is satisfied if the interviewer shows that representation of their particular interest maybe it adequate and the burden of that showing is minimal so what in practice does it mean to have adequate representation representation is is adequate under this court's rulings when the objective of the applicant for intervention is identical to that of one of the parties that's from the coalition of new mexico arizona county county's case moreover when the party upon which the intervenor must rely is the government the showing of inadequacy is quote easily made and quote because the government's obligation is to represent the general public interest and not the specific interest of the intervening about's from the wilder the guardian's case from two thousand and nine this is the fifth time we've sought intervention and you know what's what's changed about the government's representations to the court to your clients they they take the position that they're continuing the course that they've taken since it's already been eleven years i think we're going at something like that  are much has changed is the answer since first saw intervention in this case in two thousand and nine it was a two thousand and eleven bench trial which settled some of the rights away issue not all of them that led to a subsequent appeal in which this court reversed the district court's ruling with respect to the scope of the three rights way that are now at issue in this case and at that time directed precisely what the standard would be that would govern the determination of scope and called out the reasons why the district court's opinion were insufficient at that time since then very little in terms of the actual that occasion of the scope has actually happened in fact in in twenty sixteen court through a voluntary so it's always a possibility your honor but if that standard was broadly applied that settlement could somehow resolve the case that could always be used as a basis to bar intervention you're sorry are you saying that's always a reason to permit intervention no but rather in this case where sue has previously raised the concerns that are it at issue here about the protectable interest that it has where the government has signaled a willingness to compromise over the scope and sue it has taken the position that the scope that is appropriate here is the narrowest possible scope in light of the pre nine hundred seventy six uses the questions put to the government what's your position what we've heard in the briefing is that their objective is to maintain title which is very difficult to decode and in our view doesn't suggest that there is any interest in pursuing  seward's particular interest which is the narrowest possible determination of scope here even if you had intervened given the right to intervene does that give you the right to sit at that table  settlement and i think the answer to that question this no no so so your so you because the leader does not have the right to settle or object to the settlement by a party we could object to the settlement and we could it has your honor but the scope of the remain and it is to go determine what the scope of these three routes is at issue the parties have submitted different views on what discovery should be allowed the hypothetical question of whether or not the government could drop the case isn't necessarily before the court today but as i mentioned a moment ago that hypothetical possibility where sue has demonstrated that it otherwise meets the elements of rule twenty four both o thirty feet wide is the potential injury to your clients the wave of the federal government manages the eat of the monument or the you know the protest federal lands here and you know you're interested in the wilderness values of these areas above all and you know it seems to me that that question is how frequently are visitors allowed how many visitors or loud those sorts of of relevant points first we're not talking about a modest difference between twenty and thirty feet we're talking about a difference between the beaten path of ten feet and behind the state and the counties claim for sixty six foot ri which they call a highway in addition the fact is that to at least two of the routes eight issue were within the scope of the monument previously in december twenty seventh team president trump  by presidential order determined that he should cut the monument and half the result is that those two routes are no longer within the scope are entirely within the scope of the protective monument plan but there is no plane here about  particularly relevant is the question to the extent a question from the court is is the united states an adequate representative of sue us interests all under twenty four seventy seven under are us two four seven seven seven under the course twenty fourteen twenty fourteen remember order is what should be the wit of these routes what was the use of it in one thousand seven b c what were the historical uses and what is the reasonable and necessary to use in light of those pre one nine hundred seventy six uses and the fact that the government has decided to remove monument protection from the surrounding lands and the fact that sue is unique and particular concern is  addition to the width of the road the ability to access currently inaccessible areas of previously monument protected lands that are no longer within the scope of the monument plans signals that the united states interest is not really in arguing for the narrowest possible scope but is instead going to be interested in protect perhaps a wider wider scope along the lines of what the state and county have saw and the fact that these routes are no longer within the scope of the management plan it demonstrates that there is likely to be little interest in pursuing the narrowest possible scope from a preservation and conservation perspective which is what suicide has advocated for if we conclude that it's a third party intervener that you have to establish standing had to you had to get there  court's decision in san juan addressed the intervention issue or the standing issue and made clear that wasn't required you think that's good law i don't think it's i think it is good law to the extent that the supreme court case cited by the a least doesn't address the question in that case it was whether or not a intervener could pursue other claims in particular a claim for a money judgment here  clients i think the relevant question is if you're going to apply the town of chester case to apply that case on its facts and say this is an instance where we look at what is the particular relief sought in does that differ from the party that has article three standing and in this case that's not just simply not the case and i think it would if we apply the traditional stand the three you know three part of it that's fine under the traditional a standing testament if you if you apply  the injury in fact is that soon as interest in limiting the volume of vehicle access across through and into wild lands is impaired and in addition the fact that the federal government may maintain ongoing future management responsibility doesn't mean that you eliminate the question of whether or not suicide stated an interest because if you've widened the road to sixty six feet it makes very little difference whether or not the united states is consulted with respect to future maintenance and potential improvements would you address standard or review and why you say  the question is adequacy of representation in the sand want to count case the courts if the facts change in the future and the record shows that united states is no longer an adequate represent representative come back to court that is this case we are back here because the facts have changed as as we discussed as further elaborated in our briefs if there was an abus discretion standard what that would mean is that there was a finding of adequacy at some point in time that i would become fixed essentially permanently and the proposed intervener could present all  information that thought demonstrated in adequacy but if the district court for whatever reason was unpersuaded by that even if this court would view those facts differently it would be pound twixt the determination on the adequacy question made by the district court that sets a dangerous precedent because it presumes which this court never has that adequacy is a fixed condition this court has previously determined we know government policy may shift and that's just not true when the trial court in this case ruled that the road could be sixty six feet wide and we didn't think that was based on the historical evidence we appealed and this court reversed we won that case and so now because of our advocacy will be limited to the with the show and by the historical evidence which is going to be somewhere in the range of twenty feet instead of sixty six feet right now in auger in early august we're going to go to trial against cain county and the companion case hasn't been clear we the united states seek to litigate this case so that any grade federal property here is construed narrower so we're going to argue for that narrow stripes of ways the smallest wits we can think that your present intention as you represent to us is ultimately to get a judicial reviewable resolution of the scope of the road well right i mean with your president we're going to advocate in the case for the narrow would respect that as a litigation process but is that is there anything in the record or any reason to suspect that you can say now that is the president expectation of the government to get some judicial decision about is a quiet title action because this is a narrow action about property rights in our property rights abuse of the king county it does we don't have to do the same kind of balancing of interests that is traditionally done in the kinds of cases sue usually works the kind of cases where the bureau of land management is a fairly low bar it seems and if there's a possibility that your interests might diverged in that you have more stakeholders than they do or that your stakeholders have a broader view of the public interest than there's stakeholders interests really are focused on marshalling this is sort of evidence to show as narrow a period of federal property as possible it really is very limited we're not doing a broader balancing it what are the environmental effects of this whether that within the court case because sue in the united states share the same litigation objective in this narrow property rights case because sue as interests by decision in this case won't be hard because this is a case of property rights and they don't claim property rights they're really fundamentally arguing the same issues that they argued ten years ago and there you rejected them then we'd ask that you reject them again that as he said sue will be heard micus but it's a very different thing to allow them to intervene as a right have concerns that our interests will be prejudiced they're allowed to intervene as a right this is going to be a difficult and time consuming case we have to marshal a lot of evidence about how these rules were used before nine hundred seventy six and that evidence is very difficult to marshal and it may  trial well make it more complicated party will be an interviewer right as an interviewer i think it's it has the potential to play the resolution of the case and we have twelve thousand these claims statewide so we are interested in trying to resolve them as quickly and efficiently as we can the court showing well in county utah miss chelsea davis who is on this is also with us i'm also speaking today for dave helgerson so we don't have to pass the torch twice for the state and county interests i do want to slightly correct something that  counsel for the united states mentioned what we're going to spading to close out this case which is can come to one or the ball in all cases is not extensive fact finding him and going out and doing a new discovery that was done that was put into the record it is having the court make additional findings of fact based on the documents and the testimony that has already been gleaned where we're at right now we do disagree on what the width of the right of way should be not so much the travelling circus it's what's needed to keep support the  road to keep it safe travel these are all open rooms for motorized vehicle travel all three of them and so we just have to deal with what's the right with to deal with i don't like using the term scope you may have noticed that in the brief discoveries it can have all kinds of nuance and in decisions with it as judge change is held in the very first of this long saga of my career of rule twenty four which is about six opinions now he said it's about length and breadth that is what a two four seven seven road claim is about that's it and to look at this and see exactly how that worked in this case the state's brief page eight there is a cite to the merits decision we're going to proceed with hopefully the ones where we can reach a compromise where there are no brainers and the ones in the middle will have to argue over or give out but what he did was he said yes i find that the norse flag in th east you cross wall park park wash north atlantic and the nipple lake road all he found for the new playground was that it had a twenty five foot right of way it didn't say how much it would be used to do change land management its title right now there is there are no active settlement discussions the parties are focusing their efforts on this bill whether trials at through that bellwether trial will see what comes out that may influence the remaining parts of the three roads left here the management it doesn't have to do it i have tried several times to draw a distinction between the a p a cases where the united states not only has to comply with many public laws but also deal with the varied interests that participate through the public process to adopt a land management plan that those are the cases where this court truly has gone down the line of liberal intervention this is the title of your honor got it dead right this is the fifth time this case is dealing with intervention by the same party if you go to the arguments in the first motion to intervene it's the same they're raising now do they need to demonstrate standing that that one was decided that was raised in county at the time there was a split in the circuits and the tenth circuit did a port said you don't need standing to intervene and then i guess the common pretty support is piggy back standing so it doesn't need standing to seek any other relief other than the united states in there to put itself into a box either it's aligned with an asking for the same relief as the united states which means there's adequate representation or if it's going to ask for something different it has to show its own standing perry and it's the standing issue that came out intervenors do have to show if that's true why haven't they adequately showed a potential in your day to day have not done that it's not in the record they did not did not argue that they had standing it's too late to do it now we or three brief points first with respect to settlement this is the first time that we've heard that some of the talks are not going to be renewed or there's no ongoing protester forced to fight the rear guard action by reviewing its motion to intervene at a late stage of proceedings so it must then confront all the further procedural difficulties compounded by the unavoidable delay as well as the huge burden of persuading the court to do it all over again judicial cami in fairness demand more the government has said that for the first time here they will argue for the narrowest possible rights again this is the first time that we've heard this it's not representation made in the briefs and i don't think that anything th there but in all events what you haven't heard is that the united states interests and sue is interests are identical with respect to sco there is no representation that scope will be route can take many days of trial and many pages of briefing and to the extent the representation is that it's just going to be a very simple process in our view that is a red flag for this court to say th