Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 421

260 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of the Court 

requires any  person seeking  to transfer  more than  2 million 
gallons of water per day (mgd) from the Catawba River basin 
to  obtain  a  permit  from  the  North  Carolina  Environmental 
Management Commission.  See N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 143– 
215.22L(a)(1)  (Lexis  2007);  § 143–215.22G(1)(h).  Through 
that agency, the complaint alleges, North Carolina has issued 
at  least  two  such  permits,  one  to  Charlotte  for  the  transfer 
of up to 33 mgd, and one to the North Carolina cities of Con­
cord and Kannapolis for the transfer of 10 mgd.  In addition, 
the  complaint  alleges,  North  Carolina’s  permitting  statute 
“grandfathers”  a  5  mgd  transfer  by  the  CRWSP,  and  “im­
plicitly  authorize[s]”  an  unknown  number  of  transfers  of 
less  than  2  mgd.  Complaint  ¶¶ 18,  21,  22.  South  Carolina 
claims  that  the  net  effect  of  these  upstream  transfers  is  to 
deprive South Carolina of its equitable share of the Catawba 
River’s water, particularly during periods of drought or low 
river ﬂow. 

South  Carolina  seeks  relief  in  the  form  of  a  decree  that 
equitably  apportions  the  Catawba  River  between  the  two 
States, enjoins North Carolina from authorizing transfers of 
water from the Catawba River exceeding that State’s equita­
ble  share,  and  declares  North  Carolina’s  permitting  statute 
invalid to the extent it is used to authorize transfers of water 
from  the  Catawba  River  that  exceed  North  Carolina’s  equi­
table  share.  See  generally  Complaint,  Prayer  for  Relief 
¶¶ 1–3.  The  complaint  does  not  specify  a  minimum  ﬂow  of 
water  that  would  satisfy  South  Carolina’s  equitable  needs, 
but  it  does  offer  a  point  of  reference.  In  a  recent  “multi­
stakeholder  negotiation  process”  involving  the  Federal  En­
ergy Regulatory Commission (hereinafter FERC), Duke En­
ergy,  and  various  groups  from  both  States,  it  was  agreed, 
according  to  the  complaint,  that  South  Carolina  should  re­
ceive  from the  Catawba River  a  continuous ﬂow  of water  of 
no  less  than  1,100  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  about  711  mgd. 
Complaint ¶ 14.