Motion to Intervene Granted, Nebraska Public Power District

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

April 8, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Oregon-California Trails Association, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Western Nebraska Resources Council, Preserve the Sandhills, LLC, Whitetail Farms East, LLC, Horseshoe Bar Ranch, LLC v. Matt Hogan, in his official capacity, Doug Burgum, in his official capacity, Brian Nesvik, in his official capacity, Travis Voyles, in his official capacity; Nebraska Public Power District

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:26-cv-00862

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Nina Y. Wang

Civil Action No. 26-cv-00862-NYW-SBP

OREGON-CALIFORNIA TRAILS ASSOCIATION,
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE,
WESTERN NEBRASKA RESOURCES COUNCIL,
PRESERVE THE SANDHILLS, LLC,
WHITETAIL FARMS EAST, LLC,
HORSESHOE BAR RANCH, LLC,

Petitioners,

v.

MATT HOGAN, in his official capacity,
DOUG BURGUM, in his official capacity,
BRIAN NESVIK, in his official capacity,
TRAVIS VOYLES, in his official capacity,

Respondents,

and

NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT,

Respondent-Intervenor.

ORDER ON MOTION TO INTERVENE

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Intervene of Nebraska Public
Power District with Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Motion” or
“Motion to Intervene”). [Doc. 9]. Petitioners do not oppose the Motion, [Doc. 9 at 1–2],
and Respondents take no position regarding the Motion, [Doc. 19 at 2]. The Motion to
Intervene is respectfully GRANTED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 governs intervention. Intervention may be as
a matter of right or discretion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. A court must permit intervention as a
matter of right when a movant (1) makes a timely motion, (2) “claims an interest relating

to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,” (3) shows that “disposing
of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede [its] ability to protect its interest,”
and (4) shows that its interest is not “adequately represent[ed]” by “existing parties.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); W. Energy All. v. Zinke, 877 F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2017). The
Tenth Circuit “has historically taken a ‘liberal’ approach to intervention and thus favors the
granting of motions to intervene.” W. Energy All., 877 F.3d at 1164. In general, “[f]ederal
courts should allow intervention where no one would be hurt and greater justice could be
attained.” Utah Ass’n of Counties v. Clinton, 255 F.3d 1246, 1250 (10th Cir. 2001)
(quotation omitted).
The first element, timeliness, is “assessed 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.” Id. (quotation omitted). The second element, whether a movant has the
requisite interest to intervene, requires that the interest be “direct, substantial, and legally
protectable.” Coal. of Ariz./N.M. Counties for Stable Econ. Growth v. Dep’t of Interior, 100 F.3d 837, 840 (10th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted). “[T]he ‘interest’ test is primarily a
practical guide to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many apparently concerned
persons as is compatible with efficiency and due process.” Id. at 841 (quotation omitted).
The third element, whether disposing of the action may impair the movant’s ability to
protect its interest, requires the movant to “show only that impairment of its substantial
legal interest is possible if intervention is denied.” Utah Ass’n of Counties, 255 F.3d at
1253 (quotation omitted). “This burden is minimal.” Id. (quotation omitted). The final
element, whether existing parties adequately represent the movant’s interest, requires

the movant to show “that representation ‘may’ be inadequate.” Id. at 1254 (quotation
omitted). “The possibility that the interests of the applicant and the parties may diverge
need not be great in order to satisfy this minimal burden.” Id. (quotation omitted).
ANALYSIS
Timeliness. This case was initiated on March 3, 2026, when Petitioners filed their
Petition for Review of Agency Action. [Doc. 1]. The Nebraska Public Power District (the
“District”) filed the instant Motion 10 days later, on March 13, 2026, “promptly upon
learning of the litigation.” [Doc. 9 at 12]. None of the Parties argue that they have been
or will be prejudiced by the timing of this Motion. Thus, the Court finds that the Motion
was timely filed.

Interest and impairment. The District is the holder of the permit that is being
challenged in this litigation. [Id. at 13; Doc. 1 at ¶ 3]. Given that Petitioners are asking
the Court to “set aside” and “vacate” the permit granted to the District, [Doc. 1 at ¶ 11; id.
at 73], the District plainly has a legal interest that may be impaired by resolution of this
case.
Adequacy of representation. The minimal burden here of showing that a
movant’s interest may not be adequately represented by the existing parties is “easily
made when the party upon which the intervenor must rely is the government, whose
obligation is to represent not only the interest of the intervenor but the public interest
generally, and who may not view that interest as coextensive with the intervenor’s
particular interest.” Utah Ass’n of Counties, 255 F.3d at 1254. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit
has “held that the government cannot adequately represent the interests of a private
intervenor and the interests of the public.” W. Energy All., 877 F.3d at 1168. Here, though
both the District and the Respondents are government entities, “they have very different
mandates such that there is a ‘possibility of divergency of interest.” [Doc. 9 at 14 (quoting
Coal. of Ariz/N.M., 100 F.3d at 845)]. And in their Response to the Motion to Intervene,
Respondents took “no position” on the Motion and did not indicate that they plan to defend
the District’s interests. See [Doc. 19 at 1-2]; Utah Ass’n of Counties, 255 F.3d at 1256 (the government's “silence on any intent to defend the intervenors’ special interests is
deafening” (cleaned up)).
Accordingly, this Court GRANTS the Motion to Intervene.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) | The Motion to Intervene of Nebraska Public Power District with Supporting
Memorandum of Points and Authorities [Doc. 9] is GRANTED; and
(2) | The caption shall be amended, as shown at the top of this order, to identify
the Nebraska Public Power District as an intervenor-respondent.

DATED: April 8, 2026 BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge