This past Monday, November 23 the Apalachicola Bay and Riverkeeper, Inc., (Riverkeeper) became the third Florida interest to enter the 20-year old Tri-State Water Rights Litigation between Florida, Alabama, and Georgia.
Joining the State of Florida and the City of Apalachicola, the Riverkeeper received intervenor’s status after U.S. Magistrate Judge James Klindt granted the environmental advocacy group their motion filed September 30 to intervene in the City of Apalachicola v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers case before U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson.
However, the Riverkeeper Motion to Intervene was not without opposition, on October 19 the “Georgia Parties”, which includes the State of Georgia, the Atlanta Regional Commission, the City of Atlanta, Georgia, Fulton County, DeKalb County, the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, the City of Gainesville, Georgia, and the Lake Lanier Association argued against granting the motion.
The “Georgia Parties” argued that the City of Apalachicola and the State of Florida adequately represented the Riverkeeper interests in the suit and that the alignment of interests was so close that the Riverkeeper was able to simply adopt the City of Apalachicola’s complaint.
However, the Riverkeeper contended and successfully argued that the City of Apalachicola did not adequately represent their interests.
The group emphasized that it represents a unique and specialized interests of its members who seek stewardship and advocacy for the protection of Apalachicola River, Bay, tributaries, and watersheds in order to improve and maintain its environmental integrity.
The environmental group pointed out that governmental entities such as the City of Apalachicola seek to protect interests such as tax revenue, property values, water availability, and permitted water uses and because of this, the City of Apalachicola did not necessarily adequately represent their interests.
In his order, Judge Klindt concluded that the Riverkeeper had a right to intervene and that neither the City of Apalachicola nor the State of Florida adequately represented the groups interests.
Joining the State of Florida and the City of Apalachicola, the Riverkeeper received intervenor’s status after U.S. Magistrate Judge James Klindt granted the environmental advocacy group their motion filed September 30 to intervene in the City of Apalachicola v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers case before U.S. District Court Judge Paul A. Magnuson.
However, the Riverkeeper Motion to Intervene was not without opposition, on October 19 the “Georgia Parties”, which includes the State of Georgia, the Atlanta Regional Commission, the City of Atlanta, Georgia, Fulton County, DeKalb County, the Cobb County-Marietta Water Authority, the City of Gainesville, Georgia, and the Lake Lanier Association argued against granting the motion.
The “Georgia Parties” argued that the City of Apalachicola and the State of Florida adequately represented the Riverkeeper interests in the suit and that the alignment of interests was so close that the Riverkeeper was able to simply adopt the City of Apalachicola’s complaint.
However, the Riverkeeper contended and successfully argued that the City of Apalachicola did not adequately represent their interests.
The group emphasized that it represents a unique and specialized interests of its members who seek stewardship and advocacy for the protection of Apalachicola River, Bay, tributaries, and watersheds in order to improve and maintain its environmental integrity.
The environmental group pointed out that governmental entities such as the City of Apalachicola seek to protect interests such as tax revenue, property values, water availability, and permitted water uses and because of this, the City of Apalachicola did not necessarily adequately represent their interests.
In his order, Judge Klindt concluded that the Riverkeeper had a right to intervene and that neither the City of Apalachicola nor the State of Florida adequately represented the groups interests.
However, in his ruling the Judge set forth the following conditions.
The Riverkeeper cannot challenge the completeness and adequacy of the Administrative Record. They cannot seek any deviation from the Fifth Amended Scheduling Order. The group must comply with and not seek any deviation from the deadlines set in the Court’s November 2, 2009 Order.
Furthermore, the defenses, denials, and uncontested admissions previously raised by the parties to the City of Apalachicola’s Amended Complaint apply with equal effect to the allegations in the Riverkeeper complaint, except that any party, if it so desires, may answer the Riverkeeper allegations differently.
Moreover, the Riverkeeper must comply with the briefing page limits set in the Court’s November 2, 2009 Order and the group must not seek to introduce expert testimony, however they may rely upon the expert testimony presented by other parties.
The Riverkeeper cannot challenge the completeness and adequacy of the Administrative Record. They cannot seek any deviation from the Fifth Amended Scheduling Order. The group must comply with and not seek any deviation from the deadlines set in the Court’s November 2, 2009 Order.
Furthermore, the defenses, denials, and uncontested admissions previously raised by the parties to the City of Apalachicola’s Amended Complaint apply with equal effect to the allegations in the Riverkeeper complaint, except that any party, if it so desires, may answer the Riverkeeper allegations differently.
Moreover, the Riverkeeper must comply with the briefing page limits set in the Court’s November 2, 2009 Order and the group must not seek to introduce expert testimony, however they may rely upon the expert testimony presented by other parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment