Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 423

262 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of the Court 

power  operations,  and  as  the  entity  that  orchestrated  the 
multistakeholder  negotiation  process  culminating  in  a  Com­
prehensive Relicensing Agreement (CRA) signed by 70 enti­
ties  from  both  States  in  2006.  Duke  Energy’s  Motion  and 
Brief  in  Support  of  Motion  To  Intervene  and  File  Answer, 
and  Answer  2,  5.  This  CRA  set  forth  the  terms  under 
which Duke Energy has applied to renew its FERC license, 
id., at 5, and Duke Energy asserted that neither State would 
represent  its  “particular  amalgam  of  federal,  state  and  pri­
vate interests,” id., at 14.  South Carolina opposed both mo­
tions, and we referred them to the Special Master.  552 U. S. 
1160 (2008). 

One  month  later,  a  third  entity  named  in  the  complaint, 
the  city  of  Charlotte,  also  sought  leave  to  intervene  as  a 
party-defendant.  In  its  brief,  Charlotte  asserted  an  inter­
est,  both  as  the  holder  of  a  permit  authorizing  the  transfer 
of 33 mgd from the Catawba River basin—the largest single 
transfer  identiﬁed  in  the  complaint—and  as  the  potential 
source of the 10 mgd transfer approved for the cities of Con­
cord  and  Kannapolis.  Motion  for  Leave  To  Intervene  of 
City  of  Charlotte,  North  Carolina,  and  Brief  in  Support  of 
Motion  5,  7.2  Charlotte  argued  that  North  Carolina  could 
not  represent  the  city’s  interests  effectively  because  the 
State was dutybound to represent the interests of all North 
Carolina users of the Catawba River’s water, including users 
whose  interests  were  not  aligned  with  Charlotte’s.  Id., 
at  17.  South  Carolina  also opposed  Charlotte’s  motion,  and 
we  referred  it  to  the  Special  Master.  552  U. S.  1254  (2008). 

2 Charlotte also asserted an interest in protecting the terms of the CRA, 
to  which  Charlotte  was  a  signatory  but  to  which  North  Carolina,  which 
has conﬂicting duties under § 401 of the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 877, as 
added, 33 U. S. C. § 1341, was not.  North Carolina opposed this argument, 
and the Special Master did not rely on it in recommending that Charlotte’s 
motion  to  intervene  should  be  granted.  As  Charlotte  does  not  reassert 
this argument here, we do not consider it.