Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 431.0

270 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of the Court 

On  these  facts,  we  think  it  is  clear  that  the  CRWSP  has 
carried  its  burden  of  showing  a  compelling  interest  in  the 
outcome  of  this  litigation  that  distinguishes  the  CRWSP 
from all other citizens of the party States.  See New Jersey 
v.  New York, 345 U. S., at  373.  Apart from its interest as a 
user of the Catawba River’s water, the CRWSP has made a 
$30  million  investment  in  its  plant  and  infrastructure,  with 
each  participating  county  incurring  approximately  half  of 
this cost as debt.  Each county is responsible for one-half of 
the CRWSP’s cost of operations, and the venture is designed 
to  break  even  from  year  to  year.  Any  disruption  to  the 
CRWSP’s  operations  would  increase—not  lessen—the  difﬁ­
culty  of  our  task  in  achieving  a  “just  and  equitable”  alloca­
tion  in  this  dispute.  See  Nebraska  v.  Wyoming,  325  U. S. 
589,  618  (1945).  We  believe  that  the  CRWSP  has  shown  a 
compelling  interest  in  protecting  the  viability  of  its  opera­
tions, which are premised on a ﬁne balance between the joint 
venture’s two participating counties. 

We are further persuaded that neither State can properly 
represent the interests of the CRWSP in this litigation.  See 
New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  supra,  at  373.  The  complaint  at­
tributes  a  portion  of  the  total  water  transfers  that  have 
harmed  South  Carolina  to  the  CRWSP,  yet  North  Carolina 
expressly states that it “cannot represent the interests of the 
joint venture.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 54.  A moment’s reﬂection 
reveals  why  this  is  so.  In  this  dispute,  as  in  all  disputes 
over  limited  resources,  each  State  maximizes  its  equitable 
share of the Catawba River’s water only by arguing that the 
other  State’s  equitable  share  must  be  reduced.  See,  e. g., 
Colorado  v.  New  Mexico,  459  U. S.  176,  186–187  (1982).  It 
is thus likely that North Carolina, in response to South Caro­
lina’s  demand  for  a  greater  share  of  the  Catawba  River’s 
water,  will  take  the  position  that  downstream  users—such