In a wonderfully (and, alas, unusually) concise opinion, the Tenth Circuit today reversed a district court's denial of a mining company's motion to intervene. WildEarth Guardians v. United States Forest Service, No. 09-1089. An environmental group challenged the government's approval of the mining company's plans to vent methane gas from its mine, which lies beneath the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests. The mining company moved to intervene, and the district court denied the motion.
The Tenth Circuit, per Judge Hartz, reversed, with an analysis spanning less than five pages. The court held, unsurprisingly, that the mining company had shown the requisite potential impairment of its interests. More interestingly, the court also held that the mining company should not be required to rely on the government to defend its interests -- particularly where, as the court observed, "the government has multiple objectives and could well decide to embrace some of the environmental goals of [the plaintiff]." Although environmental groups might scoff at this observation, this decision appears to slam the door on any argument that intervenors' economic interests can ever be adequately represented by the government for purposes of Rule 24, particularly in environmental cases.
Comments