In a case of first impression in California, this decision holds that a party to one of several cases that the Judicial Council has ordered to be coordinated is not entitled to mandatory intervention in other of the coordinated cases than the one in which it already is a party because the would-be intervenor cannot show that it is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede its ability to protect its interest, that and its interest cannot be adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties. The decision also finds no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in denial of permissive intervention since there is no need for intervention. The party can adequately protect its interest through participation in the coordinated proceedings–particularly in these cases which challenged plans for bay and delta water quality that could not be changed without further public participation. So there was no threat of a separate settlement of some actions in a manner that might adversely affect the would-be intervenor’s interests.