Environmental Integrity Project, arose out of Mirant Ash Management’s ("Mirant") alleged pollution of the Potomack River. Mirant leases and operates two (2) coal power plants in Southern Maryland. These power plants produce waste byproducts. In order to dispose of this waste, Mirant owns the Faulkner Fly Ash Storage Facility ("Faulkner") in La Plata, Maryland. Appellants claim that the Faulkner facility did not comply with the Clean Water Act and they notified Mirant of their intent to sue for that violation.

Before Appellants filed a Complaint against Mirant, the Maryland Department of the Environment ("MDE") filed a Complaint alleging violations of the Md. Code Ann., Envir. §§ 9-339 & 9-342. Appellants filed a motion requesting intervention as a matter of right or, in the alternative, permissive intervention. The trial court denied both motions, and Appellants noted this appeal.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Trial Court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion for Intervention as a Matter of Right. The Court of Special Appeals found that Appellants did not have an interest in the subject matter sufficient to support a claim of intervention as a matter of right. In order to have an interest sufficient to support intervention as a matter of right, Appellants must show more than a mere property interest. Appellants must also show that their rights would be affected by the principles of res judicata or that Appellants are affected in a manner different and distinct from the general public at large. The Court of Special Appeals found that Appellant’s interest in this case was the same as the interest of the general public, and it denied Appellant’s Motion for Intervention.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Motion for Permissive Intervention. The Court of Special Appeals reviewed this ruling on an abuse of discretion standard. Permissive intervention is appropriate where the parties timely note the intervention and the intervention would not delay or prejudice the proceedings. The Court of Special Appeals held that the Trial Court reasonably could have concluded that the parties would be prejudiced by the different settlement goals of Appellants. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.