Staff Report
Published Dec. 22, 2010

South Carolina and North Carolina have decided to be good neighbors.

The states have reached an agreement over the use of water from the Catawba-Wateree River Basin, settling the lawsuit that South Carolina had filed against its Northern neighbor and that was before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The settlement was agreed to by both states, Duke Energy Carolinas LLC and Catawba River Water Supply Project and was unanimously approved by the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Advisory Commission on Nov. 12.

Upon the recommendation of all parties, the Supreme Court has now dismissed the action.

The crux of the dispute was the interbasin transfer of water. S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster alleged that North Carolina was siphoning more than its fair share from the Catawba River to support the Charlotte region’s growth.

“I believe this settlement, which employs Duke’s comprehensive relicensing agreement as a foundation, is a model for regional cooperation,” McMaster said. “We believe this settlement represents an excellent result for South Carolina, as well as for all citizens in the Catawba Basin.”

The terms of the agreement include:

• South Carolina and North Carolina agree to regulate the use and withdrawal of water from the river basin and to encourage or, as appropriate, require conservation, especially during periods of drought.
• The states agreed to update the Catawba-Wateree River Basin Water Supply Study every 10 years, working cooperatively with the Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group. The first update of the study would be due no later than the end of 2018. The cost of the study will be borne by the Catawba-Wateree Water Management Group, South Carolina and North Carolina.
• The states agreed to work together to coordinate with each other and implement the policies and procedures necessary for a consistent system of approving interbasin transfers within the river basin. The states should implement within their respective jurisdictions approval processes for future additional transfers.
• The states agreed that during periods of drought, both states should require all entities that withdraw water to implement drought response plans that are no less stringent than the requirements of the low inflow protocol.
• The states also agreed not to file an action in the Supreme Court of the United States against the other relating to or seeking an equitable apportionment of the river, whether in an action for injunction or otherwise, as long as each state abides by the comprehensive relicensing agreement and the settlement agreement.

McMaster said the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case was a pivotal event in reaching the settlement. North Carolina has substantially amended its interbasin transfer statute in conjunction with the litigation.

The criteria contained in the newly amended North Carolina interbasin transfer law, such as notice and an opportunity to be heard by all citizens in the basin, provided a foundation for the settlement terms, McMaster said.

“We are pleased to report that this settlement addresses the fundamental question of IBTs (interbasin transfers), raised by the litigation, in a fair manner for everyone,” he said. “Through the terms of the settlement, both North and South Carolina will be close neighbors rather than a plaintiff and defendant in a lawsuit.”