Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

Tennessee Valley Authority is a federally owned corporation in the United States which, in 1967, had plans to build a dam on Tennessee farmland. The Tellico Dam project was approved by Congress, and appropriations were given to TVA from Congress every year thereafter to ensure its completion. In 1973, when the dam was almost finished being built, a fish biologist discovered a snail darter in the Tennessee River, in the area the dam was planning to take over. This snail darter was deemed an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the area of the river set to be destroyed was critical habitat for the species. The Secretary of the Interior believed the construction of the dam to be fatal to the species and possibly cause its extinction. This discovery allowed Hill and others to take Tennessee Valley Authority to the Supreme Court of the United States under the notion they were violating Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, which “directs all Federal agencies to insure that the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat” (US Fish and Wildlife Service). Because TVA is a federally owned corporation and its project was being funded by Congress, Hill was able to argue a violation was committed and ask for an injunction.

The job of the Supreme Court in this case was to interpret the newly passed Endangered Species Act in the context of governmental appropriations to projects which harm endangered species. The first question presented in the case was whether the Secretary of the Interior’s determination would require an injunction against the operation of the dam, when the dam was approved years prior to the creation of the Endangered Species Act. In that regard, what remedies were appropriate for the species? TVA argued that they had already spent almost $100 million on the creation of the dam, and to stop the project would be at the cost of the public. In this regard, they argued against an injunction in their case, for the 'balancing of equities.’ According to the opinion of the court, the Endangered Species Act stated clearly the hard stance of the law in the case of federal agencies harming endangered animals. It did not ask nicely, it “[required] that those agencies take the necessary action that [would] not jeopardize the continuing existence of endangered species or result in the destruction of critical habitat of those species” (Weinberg 178). Consequently, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to do whatever it could to prevent the destruction of the snail darter’s habitat, regardless of the amount of money spent on the project, or how close it was to being finished. To refute the claim by TVA that the cost of stopping construction of the dam was much higher than that of the species loss, the opinion of the court stated that “neither the Endangered Species Act nor Article III of the Constitution provide federal courts with the authority to make fine utilitarian decisions like this” (Weinberg 179). The court then mentioned Section 4 of the ESA, which expressed that species should be analyzed “without reference to possible economic or other impacts” (Tohan). The court interpreted this to mean that the value of endangered species is incalculable, and therefore need be protected over all other endeavors, regardless of potential negative economic impacts. Even if they did have the authority, species under the ESA have ‘incalculable’ value, so no matter what the cost of losing the dam, the species loss would be higher. The court did not grant TVA an exception to ‘balance equities’ and made clear their stance on the severity of the ESA in condemning the actions of the federal government when they harm endangered species.

The second question presented was whether the continued appropriations for the dam after the passing of the Endangered Species Act constituted an implied repeal of that particular section of the Act. In response, the court stated that a repeal in this case would violate a cardinal rule about repeal of implications in cases of government appropriation. When voting on appropriations cases, “legislators are entitled to operate under the assumption that the funds will be devoted to purposes which are lawful and not for any purposes forbidden” (Weinberg 179). Therefore, being able to change legislation with funding violates the cardinal rule, which means implied repeals would be unconstitutional in appropriations cases. If this wasn’t a rule, the court would have to review every authorization background before voting on an appropriation, in case it would change legislation.

The majority opinion was delivered by Chief Justice Burger, who, after a close interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, determined that the court should enforce the act by not allowing the continuation of the dam project. Justice Burger stated that the ESA was clear in its wording about the role of the government in not interfering with endangered species, and therefore TVA must abide by the wording and stop the project. Berger further expressed that S 7 of the ESA urges “institutionalized caution” in situations which are not fully laid out by the law, which is the correct action in this case (Weinberg 180).

Once the decision had been reached, supporters of the Tellico Dam were able to create a board which was able to exempt specific projects from the Endangered Species Act in certain scenarios which proved fit. The board, once created, reviewed the TVA case and determined the court had made the correct decision, as the dam creation was not worth the loss of a species’ habitat. Unable to take no for an answer, dam supporters in Congress wrote an amendment to the appropriations bill which would exempt the Tellico Dam from any and all ESA rulings. This overturned the case, and after a cop out from former President Jimmy Carter to veto the amendment, the dam was completed. The fate of the snail darters was sealed until later, when a group of the species was found in a nearby lake, which took them off the Endangered Species list. Tennessee Valley Authority started selling land they initially bought from farmers to resort home development companies, which successfully drove out over 300 family farms from their source of income and homes. The land, which TVA bought from farmers for just over $300 each, was being sold for over $100,000 an acre (Plater). Presently, the Trump administration recently issued amendments to the Endangered Species Act. These amendments include the removal of the quote “without reference to possible economic or other impacts,” making it harder than ever to hold corporations or the government responsible for their actions against endangered species (Tohan).

Works Cited

Plater, Z. (2014, October 2). Things I learned from a very small fish. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55nVQWiC2bw

Service, U. (n.d.). S7 Consultation Technical Assistance. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/section7/s7process/7a2process.html

Tohan, A. K., & Elles, C. A. (2019, October 10). Trump Administration Finalizes New Endangered Species Act Regulations. Retrieved September 30, 2020, from https:// www.klgates.com/trump-administration-finalizes-new-endangered-species-act- regulations-10-10-2019/

Weinberg, Philip. Environmental Law. UPA. Kindle Edition.