759 F.Supp.3d 101
D.D.C.2024Background
- Plaintiffs—including farmers, a county, and environmental organizations—allege that the EPA failed to identify and regulate certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) found in sewage sludge, as required by the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- The core claim is that the EPA did not sufficiently identify or regulate PFAS, which are synthetic chemicals present in sewage sludge and are known for their persistence in the environment.
- Plaintiffs seek judicial relief requiring the EPA to regulate specific PFAS in sewage sludge.
- After the second amended complaint and EPA’s motion to dismiss, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), representing over 350 public clean water agencies, sought to intervene as a defendant to protect its members’ interests in the management of sewage sludge.
- EPA did not oppose NACWA's intervention, but Plaintiffs did.
- This opinion addresses only NACWA’s motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a), not the merits of the underlying claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NACWA has Article III standing to intervene | Injury to NACWA is too speculative; EPA retains broad discretion | Imposing PFAS regulations would create direct, imminent financial/regulatory impact on NACWA members | NACWA has standing; proposed regulations create redressable injury |
| Whether NACWA meets Rule 24(a) intervention criteria | EPA can adequately represent NACWA; intervention is untimely | NACWA’s interests (operational & financial) differ from EPA’s; motion is timely | NACWA satisfies all Rule 24(a) requirements, including adequacy |
| Whether intervention would impair/interfere with NACWA interest | No concrete impairment; subsequent challenges by NACWA possible | New regulations would significantly alter the status quo for NACWA members | Disposition may impair NACWA's ability to protect interests |
| Whether any restrictions should apply to NACWA's intervention | NACWA participation should be limited; avoid duplicative arguments | NACWA agrees to confine arguments and coordinate with EPA as necessary | NACWA may intervene, subject to restrictions on the scope of participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (sets associational standing requirements for organizations)
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (defining Article III injury-in-fact and causation/redressability requirements)
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of Am., 404 U.S. 528 (1972) (burden to show potential inadequacy of government representation for intervention is minimal)
- Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (intervention standards under Rule 24(a); government not presumed to represent intervenors’ interests)
- Crossroads Grassroots Pol’y Strategies v. FEC, 788 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (Rule 24(a) intervention requirements)