Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 430.0

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

269 

Opinion of the Court 

ﬁciently  compelling  interest  that  is  unlike  the  interests  of 
other citizens of the States.  The CRWSP is an unusual mu­
nicipal entity, established as a joint venture with the encour­
agement  of  regulatory  authorities  in  both  States  and  de­
signed to serve the increasing water needs of Union County, 
North  Carolina,  and  Lancaster  County,  South  Carolina.  It 
has  an  advisory  board  consisting  of  representatives  from 
both counties,  draws its  revenues from  its bistate  sales, and 
operates  infrastructure  and  assets  that  are  owned  by  both 
counties  as  tenants-in-common.  We  are  told  that  approxi­
mately  100,000 individuals  in  each State  receive their  water 
from  the  CRWSP  and  that  “roughly  half ”  of  the  CRWSP’s 
total  withdrawals  of  water  from  the  Catawba  River  go  to 
South Carolina consumers.  Reply of CRWSP to Exceptions 
of South Carolina to First Interim Report of Special Master 
22 (hereinafter CRWSP Reply).  It is difﬁcult to conceive of 
a more purely bistate entity. 

In addition, the CRWSP relies upon authority granted by 
both  States  to  draw  water  from  the  Catawba  River  and 
transfer  that  water  from  the  Catawba  River  basin.  The 
CRWSP draws all of its water from an intake located below 
the  Lake  Wylie  dam  in  South  Carolina.  South  Carolina  li­
censed the CRWSP to withdraw a total of 100 mgd from the 
Catawba  River  and  issued  a  certiﬁcate  to  the  CRWSP  in 
1989  authorizing  up  to  20  mgd  to  be  transferred  out  of  the 
Catawba  River  basin.  Id.,  at  6–7;  Answer  to  Bill  of  Com­
plaint ¶ 21.  Lancaster County currently uses approximately 
2  mgd  of  this  amount,  Union  County  uses  approximately  5 
mgd,  and  the  remaining  13  mgd  are  not  used  at  this  time. 
CRWSP Reply 7.  The CRWSP pumps Union County’s allo­
cation  across  the  state  border  pursuant  to  a  parallel  certiﬁ­
cate issued by North Carolina authorizing a 5 mgd transfer, 
ibid.,  and  the  complaint  speciﬁcally  identiﬁes  this  transfer 
as  contributing  to  South  Carolina’s  harm,  Complaint  ¶ 21. 
Thus,  the  CRWSP’s  activities  depend  upon  authority  con­
ferred by both States.