Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 420.0

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

259 

Opinion of the Court 

Christopher G. Browning, Jr., argued the cause for defend­
ant.  With him on the brief were Roy Cooper, Attorney Gen­
eral  of  North  Carolina,  James  C.  Gulick,  J.  Allen  Jernigan, 
Marc D. Bernstein, and Jennie W. Hauser. 

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. 
The  State  of  South  Carolina  brought  this  original  action 
against  the  State  of  North  Carolina,  seeking  an  equitable 
apportionment of the Catawba River.  We appointed a Spe­
cial Master and referred the matter to her, together with the 
motions  of  three  nonstate  entities  seeking  to  intervene  in 
the dispute as parties.  South Carolina opposed the motions. 
After holding a hearing, the Special Master granted the mo­
tions  and,  upon  South  Carolina’s  request,  memorialized  the 
reasons  for  her  decision  in  a  First  Interim  Report.  South 
Carolina  then  presented  exceptions,  and  we  set  the  matter 
for argument. 

Two  of  the  three  proposed  intervenors  have  satisﬁed  the 
standard  for  intervention  in  original  actions  that  we  articu­
lated  nearly  60  years  ago  in  New  Jersey  v.  New  York,  345 
U. S.  369  (1953)  (per  curiam).  Accordingly,  we  overrule 
South  Carolina’s  exceptions  with  respect  to  the  Catawba 
River Water Supply Project (hereinafter CRWSP) and Duke 
Energy  Carolinas,  LLC  (hereinafter  Duke  Energy),  but  we 
sustain  South  Carolina’s  exception  with  respect  to  the  city 
of Charlotte, North Carolina (hereinafter Charlotte). 

I
 
A
 

We  granted  leave  for  South  Carolina  to  ﬁle  its  complaint 
in this matter two years ago.  South Carolina v.  North Car­
olina, 552 U. S. 804 (2007).  The gravamen of the complaint 
is  that North  Carolina  has authorized  upstream transfers  of 
water from the Catawba River basin that exceed North Car­
olina’s equitable share of the river.  It has done so, according 
to  the  complaint,  pursuant  to  a  North  Carolina  statute  that