Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-93-01032/USCOURTS-ca10-93-01032-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

NOV 0 9 1993 

ROBEitT L. ~-IOECKER Cl~rk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ALAMEDA WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT; 

BEAR CREEK WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT; 

CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY, THE 

PLATTE CANYON WATER & SANITATION 

DISTRICT; SOUTHWEST GROUP, (Bennett 

Bear Creek Farms Water & Sanitation 

District, Meadowbrook Water District 

and Willowbrook Water & Sanitation 

District) ; SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER 

& SANITATION DISTRICT, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CAROL M. BROWNER, Administrator of the ) 

United States Environmental Protection ) 

Agency; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;) 

GORDON SULLIVAN, Acting Secretary of ) 

the Army; UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ) 

ENGINEERS, ) 

Defendants. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND; COLORADO 

ENVIRONMENTAL CAUCUS; AMERICAN RIVERS, 

INC.; NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Applicants in Intervention- ) 

Appellants in Intervention. ) 

No. 93-1032 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 91-M-2047) 

Appellate Case: 93-1032 Document: 01019284644 Date Filed: 11/09/1993 Page: 1 
Submitted on the briefs: 

Melinda Kassen, Environmental Defense Fund, Kent Hanson, Robert 

Golten, American Rivers, Inc., Colorado Environmental Caucus and 

the National Audobon Society, Boulder, Colorado, for 

Appellants-in-Intervention. 

Marcia M. Hughes of Marcia M. Hughes, P.C., Denver, Colorado, 

Mark T. Pifher of Anderson, Johnson & Gianuzio, P.C., Colorado 

Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges. 

McKAY, Chief Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellants, various environmental groups interested in 

preventing the construction of Two Forks Dam outside of Denver and 

hereafter referred to as the Caucus, appeal the district court's 

denial of their motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (2) to intervene 

as of right in a suit brought by various Denver metropolitan water 

providers (plaintiffs) against the Environmental Protection Agency 

and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1 Because we agree 

that the Caucus does not meet the requirements to intervene as of 

right, we affirm the district court. 

1 The Caucus had also petitioned for permissive intervention 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). It does not, however, appeal the 

district court's denial of such permission. See Appellant's Reply 

Br. at 16. 

2 

Appellate Case: 93-1032 Document: 01019284644 Date Filed: 11/09/1993 Page: 2 
Before we address the merits of this case, we must first 

articulate the proper standard of review. Plaintiffs urge us to 

apply an abuse of discretion standard, while the Caucus argues for 

de novo review. It is settled that rulings on permissive 

intervention under Rule 24(b) are reviewed for abuse of 

discretion, see Allen Calculators. Inc. v. National Cash Register 

Co., 322 U.S. 137, 142 (1944), as are determinations regarding the 

timeliness requirement of Rule 24(a), Sanguine. Ltd. v. United 

States Dep't of the Interior, 736 F.2d 1416, 1418 (lOth Cir. 

1984). There is a split in the Circuits, however, regarding the 

proper standard by which to review the substantive requirements of 

Rule 24(a) (2). See Sierra Club v. Robertson, 960 F.2d 83, 85 (8th 

Cir. 1992) (collecting cases). Although we have not found a case 

in which this circuit has explicitly articulated the proper scope 

of review, our prior decisions indicate that we review rulings on 

intervention of right de novo. See. e.g., Vermejo Park Co£Q. v. 

Kaiser Coal Co£Q. (In re Kaiser Steel Co£Q.), 998 F.2d 783, 791 

(lOth Cir. 1993) (reviewing an acquisition agreement and testimony 

in the bankruptcy court); Kiamichi R.R. v. National Mediation Bd., 

986 F.2d 1341, 1345 (lOth Cir. 1993) (comparing complaints and 

noting failures in intervenor's evidence); FDIC v. Jennings, 816 

F.2d 1488, 1491-92 (lOth Cir. 1987) (focusing on requirements for 

intervention of right, looking to policy concerns, and engaging in 

complete analysis) . Accordingly, in light of the language in our 

prior decisions, we will review rulings on motions to intervene as 

of right pursuant to Rule 24{a) (2) under a de novo standard. See 

also 7C Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, 

3 

Appellate Case: 93-1032 Document: 01019284644 Date Filed: 11/09/1993 Page: 3 
Federal Practice & Procedure § 1902 (1986) ("application for 

intervention of right seems to pose only a question of law"). 

As we turn to the merits of this case, it is first necessary 

to understand the factual background. In an effort to secure the 

construction of Two Forks Dam, a large water facility contemplated 

for the foothills southwest of Denver, the city applied to the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to discharge 

dredged and fill materials into the waters of the United States. 

The Corps issued the permit, concluding in the process that the 

project was water dependent. 2 See Appellant's App. at 90. The 

EPA vetoed the issuance of the permit, whereupon the plaintiffs 

brought the action underlying this case. 

As part of the permit evaluation process and in contrast to 

the opinion of the Corps of Engineers, the EPA staff concluded 

that the project was not water dependent. See id. at 43. EPA's 

final determination, however, does not discuss water dependency 

and concludes that because other large dams could be built that 

would have "less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem" the 

permit should be denied. Id. at 123. The defendants in this 

action will argue that the existence of these less damaging, 

albeit structural, alternatives justifies the EPA's veto. 

The Caucus argues that there are nonstructural alternatives 

to Two Forks which would adequately meet identified water needs. 

The Caucus contends that it must be allowed to intervene in this 

suit in order to give the district court the benefit of its views 

2 

that 

Dam. 

This determination meant the Corps was not required to assume 

there were practicable alternatives available to Two Forks 

See 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(a) (3). 

4 

Appellate Case: 93-1032 Document: 01019284644 Date Filed: 11/09/1993 Page: 4 
on the availability of such 

alternatives the agencies 

Appellant's Opening Br. at 21. 

nonstructural alternatives, "which 

failed to consider adequately." 

The Caucus contends that it will 

argue two issues in the district court: (1) that alternatives to 

Two Forks exist, and (2) that both the Corps and the EPA 

impermissibly failed to consider them. Id. at 31. 

Intervention under Rule 24(a) (2) should be granted when a 

timely motion to intervene demonstrates that (1) the intervenor 

has an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject 

matter of the action, (2) the interest might be impaired absent 

intervention, and (3) the existing parties will not adequately 

represent the interest. In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 998 F.2d at 

790. Moreover, "intervention requires that this interest in the 

proceedings be 'direct, substantial, and legally protectable.'" 

Id. (quoting United States v. Perry County Bd. of Educ., 567 F.2d 

277, 279 (5th Cir. 1978)). The district court denied the motion 

to intervene on the ground that the existing defendants adequately 

represented the interests of the Caucus. Order Denying Motions to 

Intervene, Appellant's App. at 269. 

We can affirm the decision of the district court on any basis 

supported by the record and the applicable law. United States v. 

Corral, 970 F.2d 719, 726 n.S (lOth Cir. 1992). While the 

district court found that the defendants would adequately 

represent the interests of the Caucus, a question we do not 

address, we note that another requirement of intervention is the 

presence of a legally protectable interest. Here, the Caucus 

wishes to participate in the lawsuit so that it can offer 

5 

Appellate Case: 93-1032 Document: 01019284644 Date Filed: 11/09/1993 Page: 5 
additional reasons for upholding the denial of the permit. That 

evidence, however, would be irrelevant in the district court where 

the only issue is whether, when confined solely to the reasons 

cited in the administrative record, the EPA lawfully vetoed the 

Two Forks permit. The opportunity to offer extraneous evidence 

beyond the administrative record, and thus beyond the scope of the 

narrow issue before the district court, is not an interest 

protectable in the underlying action. 3 

A court may not uphold an agency action on grounds not relied 

on by the agency. National R.R. Passenger Co~. v. Boston & Me. 

Co~., 112 S. Ct. 1394, 1403 (1992) (citing SEC v. Chene£Y Co~., 

318 u.s. 80, 88 (1943)). Thus, even if there are good alternative 

reasons for affirming the EPA's action, such evidence would be 

irrelevant to the deliberations of the district court. "The 

grounds upon which an administrative order must be judged are 

those upon which the record discloses that its action was based." 

Chene£Y, 318 U.S. at 87. The action of the EPA must be judged by 

what it actually did, not by what it might have done. See id. at 

93-94. The district court cannot affirm the EPA based on findings 

it might have made but did not. See id. at 94. Because the 

3 This case differs from New York Public Interest Research 

Group, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ., 516 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1975). 

In that case, a pharmaceutical association and three pharmacists 

were allowed to intervene in a suit challenging the regulation of 

prescription advertising. The court noted the likelihood that the 

intervenors would more vigorously advance an economic argument in 

favor of the statute than would the defendants. Id. at 352. In 

Regents of the University, the Regents had "acknowledge[d] that 

protecting the economic interests of certain pharmacists [was] one 

basis for sustaining the regulation." Id. Here, however, the EPA 

has not rested its determination on the presence of nonstructural 

alternatives, and thus, arguments to that point are not before the 

district court. 

6 

Appellate Case: 93-1032 Document: 01019284644 Date Filed: 11/09/1993 Page: 6 
Caucus seeks to interject issues into this lawsuit that are not 

before the district court, its interest is not protectable in this 

action. The district court, therefore, was correct in denying 

intervention under Rule 24(a) (2). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is affirmed. 

7 

Appellate Case: 93-1032 Document: 01019284644 Date Filed: 11/09/1993 Page: 7