Cherokee Metropolitan District v. Meridian Service Metropolitan District, 266 P.3d 401

Meridian sought to intervene in a UBS–Cherokee declaratory judgment action (Case No. 8CW80).
Meridian claimed an interest in using wastewater return flows and in the Replacement Plan/IGA rights.
Water court denied Meridian’s Rule 24(a)(2) intervention as-of-right (1981-era rule applied).
UBS sought declaratory relief that return flows could not be used as replacement credit, potentially harming Meridian’s rights.
Cherokee and UBS’s underlying Stipulation (1999) and the Replacement Plan framed Meridian’s asserted interests.
This opinion holds Meridian is entitled to intervene and requires reopening of the declaratory judgment proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Intervention right under Rule 24(a)(2).	Meridian has a protectable interest	Meridian not party to Stipulation; no interest	Meridian has right to intervene
Impact of declaratory judgment on Meridian’s rights.	Judgment may bar Meridian’s use of return flows	Judgment affects only interpretation of Stipulation	Declaratory judgment must be reopened to allow Meridian participation
Adequacy of representation by Cherokee.	Cherokee adequately represents Meridian	Cherokee may not fully represent Meridian’s distinct interests	Meridian’s interests are not adequately represented; intervention granted

Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001) (intervention purposes require flexible interest limits; no enforcement-right prerequisite)
O'Hara Grp. Denver, Ltd. v. Marcor Hous. Sys., Inc., 197 Colo. 530 (Colo. 1979) (flexible interpretation of interest; intervention allowed when related to transaction)
Hulst v. Dower, 213 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1949) (old standard; distinguishable from modern Rule 24(a))
Cascade Natural Gas Corp. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 386 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1967) (due process requires open opportunity to be heard when intervention right exists)