Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02563-REB
SAVE THE COLORADO, a Colorado nonprofit corporation,
SAVE THE POUDRE: POUDRE WATERKEEPER, a Colorado nonprofit corporation,
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, a nonprofit corporation,
LIVING RIVERS, a nonprofit corporation,
WATERKEEPER ALLIANCE, a nonprofit corporation, and
SIERRA CLUB, a nonprofit corporation, Petitioners
v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, and
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Respondents
MOTION TO INTERVENE BY MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT, NORTHERN COLORADO
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
COMES NOW proposed Respondent-Intervenor Municipal Subdistrict, Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District1 (“Municipal Subdistrict”), through its counsel
Trout Raley, and hereby moves the Court pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for Intervention as a Respondent in the above-captioned matter.
I.

D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1 CONFERRAL CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(a), counsel for the Municipal Subdistrict
conferred with counsel for Petitioners and Respondents. Respondents take no position
on this Motion. Counsel for Petitioners stated that they would not oppose the Municipal
Subdistrict’s intervention only if the Subdistrict agreed to certain requirements. Those

1

The Municipal Subdistrict is a quasi-municipal subdivision of the State of Colorado,
and as such is not required to file a disclosure statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1.
1

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16

requirements are not acceptable to the Municipal Subdistrict and the Municipal
Subdistrict assumes that Petitioners oppose this Motion.
II.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners seek to invalidate the Respondents’ decisions to approve the Windy
Gap Firming Project due to alleged violations of the National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4332, and section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”),
33 U.S.C. § 1344. The Windy Gap Firming Project is an approximately $500 million
project that will store Windy Gap Project Water for delivery to municipalities and other
water users in the Northern Colorado Front Range and west of the Continental Divide.
The Municipal Subdistrict owns the water rights for, and owns and operates, the Windy
Gap Project, and is also the project proponent for and owner and operator of the Windy
Gap Firming Project.
The Municipal Subdistrict seeks to intervene as a Respondent in this matter by
right or by permission to protect its interests in and defend the federal approvals for the
Windy Gap Firming Project that are at issue in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)–(b).
The Municipal Subdistrict’s intervention is timely because it will not cause undue delay
or prejudice to any party at this early stage in the litigation. This is an administrative
appeal case based on a review of the agency record, see Olenhouse v. Commodity
Credit Corp., 42 F.3d 1560 (10th Cir. 1994). Respondents will file the record on
February 28, 2018. No substantive pleadings have been filed in this case.
The Municipal Subdistrict is entitled to intervene in this case pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(a) because the relief the Petitioners seek will directly and substantially affect

2

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16

the Municipal Subdistrict’s economic and other interests in the Windy Gap Firming
Project by delaying the availability, or possibly causing the loss, of the water supply to
be provided by the Windy Gap Firming Project to the Municipal Subdistrict and its
Participants. The Municipal Subdistrict’s interests are not adequately represented by the
Respondents. Unlike the Respondent federal agencies, the Municipal Subdistrict is the
owner and operator of the Windy Gap Firming Project and has an obligation to provide a
water supply to municipalities and other water users that are located within its
boundaries in Northern Colorado. It is the Municipal Subdistrict and its Participants, and
not Respondent federal agencies, that will bear the consequences of a delay in
completion of the Windy Gap Firming Project that will result if the relief sought by
Petitioners in this case is granted. In the alternative, this Court should allow the
Municipal Subdistrict to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) because the Municipal
Subdistrict’s defense of the federal approvals of the Windy Gap Firming Project shares
common questions of law and fact with the main action.
III.
A.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

HISTORY OF THE WINDY GAP PROJECT
The Municipal Subdistrict is a Water Conservancy District that was created on July

6, 1970, pursuant to the Colorado Water Conservancy Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 37-45-101
et seq. (2017). The Colorado General Assembly has declared that water conservancy
districts are formed to, among other things, “[d]irectly benefit municipalities by providing
adequate supplies of water for domestic use,” and that water conservancy districts’ water
supply “works” are “a public use essential for the public benefit of the people of this state.”

3

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 37-45-102(1)(d), (3)(c).
The Municipal Subdistrict was formed to construct and operate the Windy Gap
Project, which diverts water from the Colorado River in Grand County, Colorado, for
delivery to municipalities and other water users on the Colorado Front Range (“Windy
Gap Participants”) and for use in western Colorado. Ex. A at 1-5 (excerpts of Windy
Gap Firming Project FEIS); Ex. B, ¶ 4 (Eric Wilkinson affidavit). The Windy Gap Project
was built in order to meet a portion of the then-existing and anticipated future water
supply needs of the Windy Gap Participants. See Ex. A at 1-5 (FEIS); Ex. B, ¶ 4
(Wilkinson affidavit). Windy Gap Project Water is diverted from the Colorado River and
then pumped six miles to Lake Granby, which is a feature of the federal Colorado-Big
Thompson Project (“C-BT Project”). Ex. A at 1-4 (FEIS). Windy Gap Project Water is
delivered from Lake Granby through the Adams Tunnel under Rocky Mountain National
Park and beneath the Continental Divide, and then distributed to the Windy Gap
Participants for use. Id. at 1-1, 1-5. A total of 14 Windy Gap Participants, all located on
the Colorado Front Range in an area extending roughly from the City and County of
Broomfield to a point north of the City of Fort Collins, currently receive Windy Gap
Project Water. See Id. at 1-2 to 1-3 & Fig. 1-1.
Because of its connection to and use of the federal C-BT Project, the original
Windy Gap Project was subject to a NEPA review process, which concluded with
issuance of a final environmental impact statement (“EIS”) in 1981 and selection of the
Windy Gap Project as the preferred alternative. Id. at 1-5. The Municipal Subdistrict has
entered into a series of contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation (“Reclamation”) for the

4

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16

use of the C-BT Project to store and deliver Windy Gap Project Water. The Windy Gap
Project cost approximately $120 million dollars in 1985 dollars. Ex. B, ¶ 5 (Wilkinson
affidavit). The Windy Gap Project was completed and began water deliveries in 1985.
Ex. A at 1-1 (FEIS).
The Municipal Subdistrict owns water rights for the Windy Gap Project that have
been adjudicated in Colorado state “water courts.” See Ex. A at 3-6 to 3-7 (FEIS). The
Municipal Subdistrict has also entered into agreements with interested parties in the
Colorado River basin in Colorado to resolve disagreements concerning competing
development of water and water rights on the Colorado River. See, e.g., Id. at 1-8, 3-7.
As is the case with most water projects developed in the past 50 years, the Windy Gap
Project water rights are junior in priority to various senior water rights, meaning water is
typically only available for diversion under the Windy Gap Project water rights during the
spring run-off season, which is generally mid-April through July. See Id. at 1-10, 3-11.
Windy Gap Project diversions have increased as demand by Windy Gap
Participants has increased. Id. at 3-11; Ex. B, ¶ 6 (Wilkinson affidavit). The maximum
annual historical diversion by the Windy Gap Project was 64,200 acre-feet of water in
2003, all of which was placed to beneficial use by Windy Gap Participants. Ex. A at 3-11
to 3-12 & Tbl. 3-2 (FEIS); Ex. B, ¶ 6 (Wilkinson affidavit). Full use of the Windy Gap
Project is certain to occur given the recognized “gap” between current and future water
demands on the Colorado Front Range and existing water supply. See Ex. C at 5-34 to
5-36 (excerpts of Colo. Water Conservation Bd., Statewide Water Supply Initiative
(2010)). The Colorado Water Conservation Board identified the Windy Gap Project as

5

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16

an “identified project and process” that will help fill that gap. Id. at 5-1, 5-17 to 5-19. In
some years, Windy Gap Project Water was not diverted and stored even though the
Windy Gap Project Water Rights were in priority because unused storage space in the
C-BT Project or storage capacity owned or controlled by the Windy Gap Participants
was not available. Ex. A at 3-11 (FEIS); Ex. B, ¶ 6 (Wilkinson affidavit). The Windy Gap
Participants long anticipated that full use of Windy Gap Project Water would require
additional storage capacity so that Windy Gap Project Water is available for use when
its water rights are not in priority or storage capacity is not available in Granby
Reservoir. See Ex. B, ¶ 7 (Wilkinson affidavit). The Windy Gap Firming Project will
provide a portion of that additional storage and will “firm,” or make more reliable, the
water supply provided by the Windy Gap Project. Ex. A at 1-4 (FEIS).
B.

THE WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT
The Windy Gap Firming Project is designed to provide 90,000-acre feet of

additional storage capacity for Windy Gap Project Water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir,
which will be an off-channel reservoir located in Larimer County, Colorado. Id. at 2-19.
The Windy Gap Firming Project’s purpose is to deliver a firm annual yield of 30,000
acre-feet of water from the existing Windy Gap Project to meet future demands of
Windy Gap Firming Project Participants, and to supply up to 3,000 acre-feet of water
per year to the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the western slope. Id. at 1-4.
Because the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project will require new connections
of the Windy Gap Project to the federal C-BT Project and construction of new project
features, the Municipal Subdistrict was required to seek federal approvals from

6

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16

Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), which, in turn, required
additional environmental analyses under NEPA and section 404 of the CWA.
Reclamation, with cooperating assistance from the Corps and other governmental
agencies, began the NEPA review process in 2003. Id. at 1-2. After analyzing 171
different alternatives during the scoping process and considering five of those
alternatives in its draft and final EIS, Reclamation identified construction of Chimney
Hollow Reservoir as the preferred alternative. Id. at 2-2, 2-54. Reclamation ultimately
issued a final EIS in 2011 and a Record of Decision (“ROD”) approving the Windy Gap
Firming Project in 2014. The Municipal Subdistrict and Reclamation executed a contract
in 2014 that allows the Municipal Subdistrict to use unused capacity in the C-BT Project
system to store and convey Windy Gap Project Water and to implement the Windy Gap
Firming Project. The Corps then completed its review under section 404 of the CWA
and issued a ROD approving the Windy Gap Firming Project on May 16, 2017, and
issued a section 404 permit for the Project to the Municipal Subdistrict on June 26,
2017.
During the course of Reclamation’s and the Corps’ NEPA and CWA reviews, the
agencies analyzed the environmental impacts of alternatives that met the purpose and
need for the project. The Municipal Subdistrict also worked with state agencies to
develop a fish and wildlife mitigation plan for the Project, a copy of which was attached
to the FEIS as Appendix E. The federal agency approvals for the Windy Gap Firming
Project included specific conditions to address environmental and resource concerns.
See, e.g., Ex. A at 3-399 (FEIS). The Municipal Subdistrict also worked with the State of

7

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16

Colorado and other interested parties to develop stream restoration projects on the
Colorado River below Windy Gap Reservoir and a plan for construction of a connectivity
channel around Windy Gap Reservoir. Ex. B, ¶ 11 (Wilkinson affidavit).
C.

WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
The Municipal Subdistrict is developing the Windy Gap Firming Project to provide

storage that will make the Windy Gap Project Water supplies owned by Windy Gap
Firming Project Participants more reliable. Ex. A at 1-1 (FEIS); Ex. B, ¶ 7 (Wilkinson
affidavit). The 12 Windy Gap Firming Project Participants are municipalities, special
districts, and one joint-action agency and political subdivision of the state of Colorado
that are located within Municipal Subdistrict boundaries in Northern Colorado and
provide water and power to over 370,000 people.2 Ex. A at 1-2 to 1-3, 1-13 (FEIS);
Ex. B, ¶ 8 (Wilkinson affidavit). Windy Gap Firming Project Participants are relying on
the Windy Gap Firming Project to help bridge the water supply gap on the Colorado
Front Range and meet their current and future water demands. Ex. A at 1-2 to 1-3
(FEIS); Ex. B, ¶ 7 (Wilkinson affidavit).
The Windy Gap Firming Project Participants have already paid approximately
$34 million for Windy Gap Firming Project development costs, including costs of
engineering, environmental analysis, federal and state permitting, design, planning,
development, and land acquisition. Ex. B, ¶ 8 (Wilkinson affidavit). Each Windy Gap
Firming Project Participant will also pay a pro-rata share of the approximately $466

2

The FEIS lists 13 Windy Gap Firming Project Participants, but since its publication the
City of Evans has transferred its capacity in Chimney Hollow Reservoir to the City of
Greeley. Ex. B, ¶ 8 (Wilkinson affidavit).
8

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16

million additional costs for construction and completion of the Windy Gap Firming
Project, much of which will be financed through the issuance of municipal bonds. Id.
IV. ARGUMENT
A party can intervene in a case either of right or by permission by filing a timely
motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)–(b). The Municipal Subdistrict’s intervention at this early
stage in the litigation is timely and will not cause undue delay or prejudice. The
Municipal Subdistrict has substantial economic and other interests in the Windy Gap
Firming Project that would be adversely impacted by Petitioners’ requested relief and
that are not adequately represented by other parties. Therefore, the Court should grant
the Municipal Subdistrict’s Motion to Intervene as a Respondent.
A.

THE MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT’S MOTION TO INTERVENE IS TIMELY.
A court assesses whether a motion to intervene is timely “in light of all the

circumstances, including the length of time since the applicant knew of his interest in the
case, prejudice to the existing parties, prejudice to the applicant, and the existence of
any unusual circumstances.” Utah Ass’n of Ctys. v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1250 (10th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Sanguine, Ltd. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 736 F.2d 1416, 1418 (10th
Cir. 1984)). The timeliness requirement is a “guard against prejudicing the original
parties by the failure to apply [for intervention] sooner.” Utah Ass’n of Ctys., 255 F.3d at
1250 (quoting Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202, 1205 (5th Cir. 1994)). Accordingly,
“[f]ederal courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt and greater
justice could be attained.” Id. (quoting Sierra Club, 18 F.3d at 1205).

9

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16

The proceedings in this case are at a very preliminary stage given that the
original Petition for Review was filed on October 26, 2017, and no substantive filings
have yet been submitted. The case is an administrative appeal case, see Olenhouse,
42 F.3d 1560, and the record is not due to be filed until February 28, 2018. The
Municipal Subdistrict acted with diligence to move for intervention in this case and filed
this Motion soon after the United States filed its Answer. See Simms v. Andrews, 118
F.2d 803, 805–06 (10th Cir. 1941) (rejecting argument that intervention motions must be
filed before the time for filing an answer). Filing the Motion after the United States filed
its Answer allowed the Municipal Subdistrict to review the Answer filed by the United
States prior to tendering its Answer with this Motion. No party will be prejudiced by the
timing of the Municipal Subdistrict’s intervention. Therefore, the Municipal Subdistrict’s
Motion to Intervene is timely.
B.

THE MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT IS ENTITLED TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.
“[T]he court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating

to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that
disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability
to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 24(a)(2). In the Tenth Circuit, courts generally follow a “liberal line in allowing
intervention” under Rule 24(a). Utah Ass’n of Ctys., 255 F.3d at 1249. The Municipal
Subdistrict is entitled to intervene in this matter under Rule 24(a)(2) because it has
substantial legal, economic, and other interests at stake in this litigation that would be

10

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16

adversely impacted if the Petitioners’ relief is granted, and those interests are not
adequately represented by the existing Respondents.
1.

The Municipal Subdistrict Claims Interests in the Subject Matter of
the Litigation That May be Impaired by the Outcome.

A potential intervenor’s interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of
the action must be direct, substantial, and legally protectable. Coalition of Ariz./N.M.
Ctys. for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dep’t of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 840-41 (10th Cir. 1996).
To prove that its interests would be impaired or impeded by disposal of the action in its
absence, a “would-be intervenor must show only that impairment of its substantial legal
interest is possible if intervention is denied. This burden is minimal.” Utah Ass’n of Ctys.,
255 F.3d at 1253 (quoting Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394, 399 (6th Cir. 1999)).
The Municipal Subdistrict is the entity that obtained federal approvals of the
Windy Gap Firming Project on behalf of the Windy Gap Firming Project Participants, is
the owner of the Windy Gap Project Water Rights, and is the owner and operator of the
Windy Gap Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project. The Municipal Subdistrict has
pursued the Windy Gap Firming Project to help Windy Gap Firming Project Participants
meet water demands within their service areas. The Municipal Subdistrict and the
Windy Gap Firming Project Participants have already expended in excess of $34 million
on the Windy Gap Firming Project, and the Municipal Subdistrict anticipates issuing
hundreds of millions of dollars of municipal bonds to finance the Windy Gap Firming
Project. Ex. B, ¶ 8 (Wilkinson affidavit).  Accordingly, the Municipal Subdistrict has direct
economic and other interests in the federal approvals at issue in this case. 

11

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 16

The Municipal Subdistrict’s economic and other interests in the project would be
significantly impaired if the federal approvals for the Windy Gap Firming Project are
invalidated in this case because the construction and completion of the Windy Gap
Firming Project will be delayed. The Tenth Circuit has recognized that “[t]he threat of
economic injury from the outcome of litigation undoubtedly gives a petitioner the
requisite interest [to intervene].” Utahns for Better Transp. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 295
F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2002). A delay in construction of the Windy Gap Firming
Project will likely result in an increase in the cost of the Windy Gap Firming Project. Id.
Ex. B, ¶ 15 (Wilkinson affidavit). A delay in completion of the Windy Gap Firming Project
also impairs the ability of the Municipal Subdistrict and its Windy Gap Firming Project
Participants to rely on the Windy Gap Project as a source of water supply during
drought conditions. Id. These interests support the Municipal Subdistrict’s intervention
by right in this matter.
2.

The Municipal Subdistrict’s Interests Are Not Adequately
Represented By Existing Parties.

The final hurdle for a party to intervene as a matter of right is showing that its
interests would not be “adequately represented by existing parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(a)(2). Representation by another party is presumed adequate only “when the
objective of the applicant for intervention is identical to that of one of the parties.”
Coalition of Ariz./N.M. Ctys., 100 F.3d at 845 (quoting City of Stilwell, Okla. v. Ozarks
Rural Elec. Coop., 79 F.3d 1038, 1042 (10th Cir. 1996)). Otherwise, the applicant need
only show that another party’s representation of its interests “may be” inadequate. San
Juan Cty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163, 1204 (10th Cir. 2007) (en banc). “The

12

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16

possibility of divergence of interest need not be great in order to satisfy” this burden.
Coalition of Ariz./N.M. Ctys., 100 F.3d at 845 (quoting Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 578 F.2d 1341, 1346 (10th Cir. 1978)). A proposed
intervenor bears a “minimal” burden of demonstrating its interest is not adequately
represented by the existing parties. WildEarth Guardians v. Nat’l Park Serv., 604 F.3d
1192, 1200 (10th Cir. 2010). This “showing is easily made when,” as here, “the party
upon which the intervenor must rely is the [federal] government, whose obligation is to
represent not only the interest of the intervenor but the public interest generally. . . .”
Utah Ass’n of Ctys., 255 F.3d at 1254.
Petitioners’ request that this Court invalidate Respondents’ approvals of the
Windy Gap Firming Project is adverse to the Municipal Subdistrict’s interests in the
Windy Gap Firming Project. As for the Respondents, Reclamation, the Corps and the
Municipal Subdistrict have an interest in defending the federal agency approvals of the
Windy Gap Firming Project. But the federal Respondents are also charged with
promoting the national public interest, which may be different from the Municipal
Subdistrict’s significant, unique, and specific economic and other interests in the Windy
Gap Project and the Windy Gap Firming Project. It is the Municipal Subdistrict and its
Windy Gap Firming Project Participants, not Respondents, that will bear the increase in
costs that will be caused by a delay in construction of the Project and the resulting
adverse impacts on the water supplies of the Municipal Subdistrict and its Participants.
The Municipal Subdistrict is therefore entitled to intervene in this case as a
matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2).

13

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 16

C.

THE MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PERMISSIVELY INTERVENE.
In the alternative, the Municipal Subdistrict seeks leave to intervene in this case

by permission. The Court may permit anyone to intervene who “has a claim or defense
that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1)(B). In exercising its broad discretion to allow permissive intervention, “the Court
must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of
the original parties’ rights.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3). The court may also consider
whether the would-be intervenor’s interests are not adequately represented by existing
parties, like it does in the context of intervention by right. See Tri-State Generation and
Transmission Ass’n v. N.M. Pub. Reg. Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1068, 1075 (10th Cir. 2015).
The Municipal Subdistrict intends to raise defenses in this case that are likely to
share common questions of law or fact with the defenses that the Respondent federal
agencies are likely to raise. The Municipal Subdistrict’s interests are not identical to
those of Respondents, and its participation will add value by offering additional analysis
based on the Municipal Subdistrict’s unique knowledge of the agency record and the
Windy Gap Firming Project..
Intervention also will not cause undue delay or prejudice. The Municipal
Subdistrict moved for intervention shortly after the Respondents filed their Answer. Its
participation in the case will not require additional discovery given that this is an
administrative appeal case under Olenhouse, 42 F.3d 1560. In addition, the Municipal
Subdistrict agrees that its participation in this case will be coordinated with Respondents
so as to supplement, but not duplicate, Respondents’ filings. The Municipal Subdistrict

14

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16

will also accept, with a minor modification required for it to avoid duplication of
Respondents’ pleadings, the briefing schedule agreed to by the Petitioners and
Respondents and approved by this Court.3 This Court therefore should allow the
Municipal Subdistrict to intervene under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) if it does not do so under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).
V.CONCLUSION
THEREFORE, The Municipal Subdistrict requests that this Court enter the
attached proposed Order granting its Motion to Intervene pursuant to Red. R. Civ. P. 24.
Also submitted herewith is a proposed “Answer of Respondent-Intervenor Municipal
Subdistrict” for filing in this matter, should intervention be granted.
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of January, 2018.
TROUT RALEY
By: s/ Bennett W. Raley
Bennett W. Raley, CO #13429
Peggy E. Montaño, CO #11075
Deborah L. Freeman, CO #12278
William Davis Wert, CO #48722
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80203
Telephone: (303) 861-1963
Facsimile: (303) 832-4465
E-mail: braley@troutlaw.com; pmontano@troutlaw.com;
dfreeman@troutlaw.com; dwert@troutlaw.com
Attorneys for Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District

3

The Municipal Subdistrict will request that the case management order be amended to
allow it to file any pleading or brief within three business days after a filing by
Respondents so that it can ensure that its filing is not duplicative of Respondents’.
15

 Case 1:17-cv-02563-REB Document 23 Filed 01/26/18 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 16th day of January, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court via the CM/ECF system, which will provide notice of this filing by
email to all counsel of record.
s/ Meichell Walsh
Meichell Walsh
TROUT RALEY
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1600
Denver, Colorado 80203
Telephone: (303) 861-1963
E-mail: mwalsh@troutlaw.com

16