Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; December 15, 1999; Federal Appellate Court
Appellants Croton Watershed Clean Water Coalition sought to intervene as defendants in a case initiated by the United States against New York City concerning compliance with federal laws for drinking water safety. The Coalition argued the district court wrongly denied their motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, but the appellate court affirmed this denial. The case's background traces back to the 1980s with the enactment of statutory and regulatory measures, including the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) mandated by the EPA in 1989, requiring filtration for public water systems using surface water, particularly impacting the Croton watershed serving approximately 700,000 New York City consumers. In 1991, a City report indicated future filtration would be necessary, leading to a 1992 stipulation between the City and New York State Department of Health for filtration and disinfection. However, the City failed to take action following an EPA determination in 1993 mandating these measures. Consequently, the United States filed a complaint in 1997 alleging violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and SWTR. New York State intervened as a plaintiff, seeking compliance with health requirements. After the City proposed a settlement, the Coalition expressed its desire to intervene, claiming to represent consumers and residents concerned about water quality and opposing filtration due to perceived dangers and costs. The district court ultimately denied the Coalition's motion to intervene on May 6, 1998.
The district court ruled that the appellants' interests were not pertinent to the case under Rule 24(a), asserting that the Coalition did not claim its members' interests were directly involved but rather that their interests were improperly overlooked in prior administrative decisions. The court also denied the appellants' request for permissive intervention. Following the filing of a consent decree by existing parties on May 27, 1998, which was subject to public comment for 30 days, the court later approved the decree on November 24, 1998. The appeal focused solely on the denial of the motion to intervene, which was affirmed.
The review standard for denying intervention is an abuse of discretion, given the varying factual contexts of such motions. Under Rule 24, intervention can be of right or permissive. Appellants sought both types of intervention. For intervention of right, a timely application must demonstrate either a statutory unconditional right or a significant interest that could be impaired if not represented, unless adequately represented by existing parties. The appellants referenced the 'private attorney general' provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as a basis for unconditional intervention but seem to have abandoned this claim on appeal. The SDWA allows private enforcement suits but aims to limit private actions to complement administrative criteria, thus preventing individuals from setting enforcement standards. Consequently, the Coalition's attempt to block enforcement rather than enforce established criteria fails to meet the statutory requirements for intervention under Rule 24(a)(1).
Appellants argue that the district court incorrectly denied their motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2). To qualify for intervention as of right, an applicant must meet four criteria: (1) timely application, (2) a significant interest in the action, (3) potential impairment of that interest, and (4) inadequate protection of the interest by existing parties. The district court found the application timely but ruled that the Coalition’s interests were not adequately raised in the action, failing the second requirement. The appeal's focus is on the remaining three criteria, particularly the need to show a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest. The Coalition claims its members face financial burdens from higher water rates and health risks from filtration, along with broader community impacts such as increased taxes and environmental effects. However, these interests are considered collateral to the main action, which seeks compliance with regulations mandating filtration. Consequently, the court concluded that the interests presented by the appellants do not warrant intervention as of right under Rule 24(a)(2).
The Coalition challenges the decision to filter water in the Croton watershed, citing concerns about the costs, dangers, and the process of filtration selection. However, these concerns are deemed irrelevant to the current compliance action, as established by the district judge, who ruled that the Coalition cannot introduce these issues. The filtration requirement is mandated by federal law under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which obligates the EPA to set regulations for filtration in public water systems supplied by surface water. The SDWA stipulates that courts have limited equitable power to ensure compliance with these regulations, not to alter or reject them. The Coalition's argument that the district court could refuse to order filtration is unpersuasive; the court's role is confined to compliance issues as defined by the statute. The Coalition has not demonstrated that its members will be adversely affected by this action, as they had multiple opportunities to contest the filtration decisions, but may be barred from doing so now due to the statute of limitations. Furthermore, they can still initiate an independent action against the construction of the filtration plant, as non-parties to a consent decree retain the right to challenge it. Overall, the Coalition does not meet the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24.
A judgment in a lawsuit resolves issues between the parties involved but does not affect the rights of non-parties, as clarified by the 1991 Civil Rights Act for employment-related claims. Appellants have filed a related lawsuit, now assigned to the same district judge, raising concerns about potential bias. However, without evidence of bias or any expressed opinion from the judge on the merits, the court finds no basis for intervention as a matter of right.
Coalition members can contest any rate increases due to the construction of a filtration plant in future proceedings; the New York City Water Board sets rates after public hearings, which are subject to state review. The denial of intervention does not prevent appellants from pursuing their claims elsewhere, and their interests can be adequately represented by the existing parties, including government representatives who share similar concerns.
Regarding permissive intervention, the court also denied this request, stating that such intervention must be timely and based on a legal or factual question in common with the main action, without causing undue delay or prejudice. The standard for reviewing a denial of permissive intervention is deferential, and such denials are rarely overturned. Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying both intervention as of right and permissive intervention.
The Coalition does not claim a federal statute grants it or its members the right to intervene in the case, but it raises a common question regarding the propriety of filtration. The district court determined that the interests of the proposed intervenors, while related to the case, do not directly pertain to the issues at hand, thus their intervention would unnecessarily delay the existing parties' adjudication. This decision was deemed not an abuse of discretion, as the court noted the extensive time since the City recognized its duty to filter and that the existing parties were close to resolving their disputes. Consequently, the district court's judgment is affirmed. Additionally, the Town of Yorktown and the City of Yonkers also attempted to intervene in the district court but did not appeal their unsuccessful motion.
