Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 434

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

273 

Opinion of the Court 

license  and  the  CRA  that  forms  the  basis  of  Duke  Energy’s 
pending renewal  application.7  Through its dams,  Duke En­
ergy controls the ﬂow of the Catawba River under the terms 
of  its  50-year  FERC  license,  which  regulates  the  very  sub­
ject  matter  in  dispute:  the  river’s  minimum  ﬂow  into  South 
Carolina.  See  Order  Issuing  License  (Major),  Duke  Power 
Co.,  Project  No.  2232,  20  F.  P.  C.  360,  371–372  (1958)  (Arts. 
31  and  32).  The  CRA,  likewise,  represents  the  full  consen­
sus of 70 parties from both States regarding the appropriate 
minimum continuous ﬂow of Catawba River water into South 
Carolina  under  a  variety  of  natural  conditions  and,  in  times 
of drought, the conservation measures to be taken by entities 
that  withdraw  water  from  the  Catawba  River.  These  fac­
tors  undeniably  are  relevant  to  any  “just  and  equitable  ap­
portionment”  of  the  Catawba  River,  see  Colorado  v.  New 
Mexico, 459 U. S., at 183, and we are likely to consider them 
in  reaching  our  ultimate  disposition  of  this  case.  Thus,  we 
ﬁnd  that  Duke  Energy  has  carried  its  burden  of  showing 
unique and compelling interests. 

We  also  have  little  difﬁculty  in  concluding  that  neither 
State sufﬁciently represents these compelling interests. 
Neither State has signed the CRA or expressed an intention 
to  defend  its  terms.  To  the  contrary,  North  Carolina  has 
expressed  an  intention  to  seek  its  modiﬁcation.  Tr.  of  Oral 
Arg.  51–52.  Given  the  importance  of  Duke  Energy’s  inter­
ests and their relevance to our ultimate decision, we believe 
these  interests  should  be  represented  by  a  party  in  this  ac­
tion, and we ﬁnd that neither State is situated to do so prop­
erly.  We believe  that Duke Energy  should be  permitted to 
represent its own interests. 

For  these  reasons,  we  agree  with  the  Special  Master  that 
Duke Energy should be permitted to intervene, and we over­
rule South Carolina’s exception in that regard. 

7 Duke  Energy  is  operating  under  a  temporary  extension  of  its  50-year 
FERC license, which expired in 2008, and the CRA represents Duke Ener­
gy’s investment in a new 50-year license.