Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 435.0

274 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of the Court 

3 

We  conclude,  however,  that  Charlotte  has  not  carried  its 
burden  of  showing  a  sufﬁcient  interest  for  intervention  in 
this  action.  Charlotte  is  a  municipality  of  North  Carolina, 
and for purposes of this litigation, its transfers of water from 
the Catawba River basin constitute part of North Carolina’s 
equitable  share.  While  it  is  true  that  the  complaint  names 
Charlotte as an entity authorized by North Carolina to carry 
out a large transfer of water from the Catawba River basin, 
the complaint does not seek relief against Charlotte directly. 
Rather,  the  complaint  seeks  relief  against  all  North 
Carolina-authorized  transfers  of  water  from  the  Catawba 
River  basin,  “past  or  future,”  in  excess  of  North  Carolina’s 
equitable  share.  Complaint,  Prayer  for  Relief  ¶ 2.  Char­
lotte,  therefore,  occupies  a  class  of  affected  North  Carolina 
users  of  water,  and  the  magnitude  of  Charlotte’s  authorized 
transfer  does not  distinguish  it in  kind  from other  members 
of  the  class.  See  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  supra,  at  373, 
and  n.  (noting  that  Philadelphia  represented  half  of  Penn­
sylvania’s  citizens  in  the  watershed).  Nor  does  Charlotte 
represent  interstate  interests  that  fall  on  both  sides  of  this 
dispute,  as  the  CRWSP  does,  such  that  the  viability  of 
Charlotte’s  operations  in  the  face  of  this  litigation  is  called 
into question.  Its interest is solely as a user of North Caro­
lina’s share of the Catawba River’s water. 

Charlotte’s  interest  falls  squarely  within  the  category  of 
interests  with  respect  to  which  a  State  must  be  deemed  to 
represent all of its citizens.  As we recognized in New Jersey 
v.  New York, a State’s sovereign interest in ensuring an equi­
table share of an interstate river’s water is precisely the type 
of  interest  that  the  State,  as  parens  patriae,  represents  on 
behalf of its citizens.  See also United States v.  Nevada, 412 
U. S., at 539; Nebraska v.  Wyoming, 325 U. S., at 616.  That 
is  why,  in  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  supra,  we  required  that 
a proposed intervenor show a compelling interest “in his own 
right,” distinct  from the collective  interest of “all  other citi­