Concerning the Application for Underground Water Rights, Change of Water Rights, and Plan for Augmentation Of…

Summary

The court affirmed denial of intervention as of right because the proposed intervenor and the existing party shared an identical interest in minimizing the loss of the same water rights, and the proposed intervenor made no compelling showing that the existing party would inadequately represent that interest. The court dismissed the appeal from denial of permissive intervention because the late request did not involve an abuse of discretion and therefore was not a final appealable order.