Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

State v. Kennecott Corp.

Citation: 35 ELR 20198
No. No. 2:86CV902, (D. Utah, 09/29/2005) motion to intervene denied

A court denies motions to intervene and set aside a consent decree concerning the cleanup and restoration of contaminated groundwater. The motion to intervene was filed 10 years after the consent decree was entered, there has been extensive public involvement concerning the decree, and the existing parties have expended significant resources and allocated and invested millions of dollars in connection with the decree. Moreover, the state, as a party participant, adequately protected the petitioner's purported interest. So while the existing parties would be greatly prejudiced by the intervention, the petitioner fails to state how he would be prejudiced if his motion for intervention is denied. In addition, the petitioner claimed that the consent decree should be voided because public comment was not provided. Yet a 30-day comment period was provided even though the parties involved in the decree were not statutorily obligated to provide one.

[Prior decisions in this litigation are published at 23 ELR 20257 and 24 ELR 20798.]