Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 445

284 

SOUTH  CAROLINA  v.  NORTH  CAROLINA 

Opinion of Roberts, C. J. 

III 

Charlotte,  Duke  Energy,  and  CRWSP  claim  a  variety  of 
speciﬁc needs for water to justify their intervention.  But all 
those particular needs derive from an interest in the water of 
the  Catawba  River.  That  interest  is  not  exclusive,  but  is 
instead  shared  “with  all  other  citizens  and  creatures  of  the 
state.”  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  345  U. S.,  at  373.  The 
State’s  “citizens  and  creatures”  certainly  put  the  Catawba’s 
water  and  ﬂow  to  different  uses—many  for  drinking  water, 
some for farming or recreation, others for generating power. 
That  does  not,  however,  make  their  interest  in  the  water 
itself unique.  And it is the respective interests of the States 
in  the  water  itself  that  are  being  litigated  in  this  original 
action—not  the  claims  of  particular  citizens  that  they  be  al­
lowed to put the water to speciﬁed uses.  The latter subject 
is  “an  intramural  dispute  over  the  distribution  of  water 
within the [State],” ibid., and is not the subject of this origi­
nal proceeding. 

The  majority  recognizes  as  much  with  respect  to  Char­
lotte,  ante,  at  274–276,  but  departs  from  these  principles  in 
granting  intervention  to  Duke  Energy  and  CRWSP.  The 
majority’s reasons for doing so do not withstand scrutiny. 

The  majority  initially  contends  that  Duke  Energy  should 
be allowed to intervene because it possesses “relevant infor­
mation” that we are “likely to consider.”  Ante, at 272, 273. 
Nonparties  often  do,  but  that  is  not  a  “compelling  interest” 
justifying  intervention.  I  have  little  doubt  that  Philadel­
phia  possessed  pertinent  information  in  New  Jersey  v.  New 
York, but we did not permit Philadelphia to intervene on that 
ground.  Parties to litigation have ready means of access to 
relevant  information  held  by  nonparties,  and  those  nonpar­
ties  can  certainly  furnish  such  information  on  their  own  if 
they consider it in their best interests (through, for example, 
participation as amici curiae). 

The majority also states that Duke Energy has compelling 
interests in its hydroelectric operations  along the river, and