Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 418.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 256 (2010) 

257 

Syllabus 

(1)  The  CRWSP  should  be  allowed  to  intervene.  It  is  an  unusual 
bistate entity that is jointly owned and regulated by, and supplies water 
from  the  river  to,  North  Carolina’s  Union  County  and  South  Carolina’s 
Lancaster County.  It has shown a compelling interest in protecting the 
viability of its operations, which are premised on a ﬁne balance between 
the joint venture’s two participating counties.  The stresses this litiga­
tion would place on the CRWSP threaten to upset that balance.  More­
over,  neither  State  has  sufﬁcient  interest  in  maintaining  that  balance 
to  represent  the  full  scope  of  the  CRWSP’s  interests.  The  complaint 
attributes a portion of the total water transfers alleged to have harmed 
South Carolina to the CRWSP, but North Carolina cannot represent the 
joint  venture’s  interests,  since  it  will  likely  respond  to  the  complaint’s 
demand  for  a  greater  share  of  the  river’s  water  by  taking  the  position 
that downstream users—such as Lancaster County—should receive less 
water.  See, e. g., Colorado v.  New Mexico, 459 U. S. 176, 186–187.  Any 
disruption to the CRWSP’s operations would increase—not lessen—the 
difﬁculty  of  achieving  a  “just  and  equitable”  allocation  in  this  dispute. 
See Nebraska v.  Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 618.  Pp. 268–271. 

(2)  Duke  Energy  should  also  be  permitted  to  intervene.  It  has 
carried its  burden of  showing unique and  compelling interests:  It oper­
ates 11 dams and reservoirs in both States that generate electricity for 
the  region  and  control  the  river’s  ﬂow;  holds  a  50-year  federal  license 
governing its hydroelectric  power operations; and is the  entity that or­
chestrated a multistakeholder negotiation process culminating in a Com­
prehensive  Relicensing  Agreement  (CRA),  signed  by  70  entities  from 
both States, which sets the terms under which Duke Energy has applied 
to  renew  its  license.  These  interests  will  be  relevant  to  the  Court’s 
ultimate  decision,  since  it  is  likely  that  any  equitable  apportionment  of 
the river will need to take into account the amount of water that Duke 
Energy needs to sustain its operations.  And, there is no other similarly 
situated entity on the river, setting Duke Energy’s interests apart from 
the  class  of  all  other  citizens  of  the  States.  Just  as  important,  Duke 
Energy has a unique and compelling interest in protecting the terms of 
its  license  and  as  the  entity  that  orchestrated  the  CRA,  which  repre­
sents  a  consensus  regarding  the  appropriate  minimum  continuous  ﬂow 
of river water into South Carolina under a variety of natural conditions 
and the conservation measures to be taken during droughts.  Moreover, 
neither  State  is  situated  to  properly  represent  Duke  Energy’s  compel­
ling  interests.  Neither  has  signed  the  CRA  or  expressed  an  intention 
to  defend  its  terms,  and,  in  fact,  North  Carolina  intends  to  seek  its 
modiﬁcation.  Pp. 271–273. 

(3)  However, because  Charlotte’s interest is not  sufﬁciently unique 
and will be properly represented by North Carolina, the city’s interven­