Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08285/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08285-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Save the Colorado, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

United States Department of the Interior, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-08285-PCT-MTL

ORDER 

Before the Court are Motions to Intervene filed by the Irrigation & Electrical 

Districts’ Association of Arizona (the “Districts’ Association”) (Doc. 26), and the States 

of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming (the “States”) (Doc. 28). 

For the reasons expressed herein, the Court grants both Motions pursuant to Rule 24(a) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

I. BACKGROUND

This action has the potential to affect the Glen Canyon Dam, which sits along the 

Colorado River (the “River”) and is a source of hydroelectric power. The States depend 

on the hydroelectric power produced by water from the River and the money derived 

therefrom. (Doc. 28 at 10-11.) As such, they are heavily involved shaping legal policy 

concerning the River through federal legislation and judicial advocacy. (Id. at 5-6.) The 

States are also subject to interstate compacts and other legal provisions concerning 

hydroelectric power and allocations of River water. (Id. at 5, 10-11.)

Case 3:19-cv-08285-MTL Document 34 Filed 04/23/20 Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Districts’ Association consists of not-for-profit entities, including municipal 

corporations “whose primary responsibility is to provide reliable, cost-based electric 

service. . . .” (Doc. 26 at 10.) Members of the Districts’ Association contract for 

hydropower from the Glen Canyon Dam and facilities downstream from that Dam. (Id. at

1, 11.)

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Standard for Mandatory Intervention

Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure commands that a court grant 

a timely motion to intervene if the movant: (1) “claims an interest relating to the property 

or transaction” at issue; (2) is situated in a way that “disposing of the action may as a 

practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest”; and (3) 

“existing parties [do not] adequately represent that interest.” The Court must also consider 

whether intervention will cause prejudice or undue delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3).

B. Application 

Given the early stage of this case and that the administrative record has not yet been 

filed, the Court finds that the motions are timely. For the same reasons, intervention will 

not cause prejudice or undue delay.

1. The States

As their Motion (Doc. 28) thoroughly explains and this Order has briefly outlined, 

the States have alleged an interest in River water allocation (id. at 5) and hydroelectric 

power (id. at 10) produced by the River. Plaintiffs in this action want the Department of 

the Interior to give greater consideration to the impact of climate change in its plan to 

manage the Glen Canyon Dam. (Doc. 1 at 3.) Ultimately, the disposition of that issue 

might impede the States’ ability to protect their hydropower and water allocation interests. 

While the States have some overlapping interests with the Department of the Interior, the

States’ interests are more parochial than that of the federal government. Thus, the Court 

must allow the States to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-08285-MTL Document 34 Filed 04/23/20 Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. The Districts’ Association

The Districts’ Association notes that many of its members have contracts for 

hydropower from either the Glen Canyon Dam or dams that are located downstream. (Doc. 

11 at 26.) Additionally, it argues that Congress specifically provided that municipalities

and other public corporations are the preferred consumers of hydropower from the Dam. 

(Doc. 26 at 10; 43 U.S.C. § 485h(c)(1).) Those are the precise type of entities that comprise

the Districts’ Association.

The Districts’ Association is affiliated with the Colorado River Energy Distributors 

Association, which is already an intervenor in this case. (Doc. 13.) The Districts’ 

Association alleges that this case might implicate dams that do not concern the Distributors 

Association. (Doc. 26 at 2.) Districts’ Association thus claims a protectable interest in the 

property at issue that is not adequately represented by an existing party. The Court must 

permit intervention under Rule 24(a)(2).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED granting the Motions to Intervene (Docs. 26 and 28) pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, consistent with the Scheduling Order’s 

application to the Distributor’s Association Intervenor (Doc. 25), the States and the 

Districts’ Association shall have an additional 3 days for filings for the limited purpose of 

avoiding duplication with the government Defendants.

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2020.

Case 3:19-cv-08285-MTL Document 34 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 3