Tennessee Valley Authority Versus Hill 1978

Tennessee Valley

TVA v. Hill Questions

Do you agree with the Court's decision, based upon the language of the Endangered Species Act quoted above? That is, did the Endangered Species Act preclude construction of the dam? Should the ESA have precluded construction of the dam? Was Congress right to amend the ESA to permit the dam to be built?

The Supreme Court acted correctly in its decidedly rigid invocation of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). According to its decision, Section 7 asserts that "all Federal agencies must take such action as is necessary to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not result in the destruction or modification of this critical habitat area." (U.S. Supreme Court, p. 1)

Given that $100 million of federal funds had already been funneled into the Tellico Dam project, it is clear that Congress was explicitly responsible for intervening with any use of this funding that might lead to the destruction of an endangered habitat. The discovery of the snail darter just two years after the establishment of the 1973 legislation would bring about the first judicial invocation of the ESA. In doing so, it would also justify the development of such legislation, with the effort to stop dam construction not just corresponding with the intent of the Act but also with the will of the voting public. To the point, Church (2007) indicates that the public battle over the Tellico Dam was "less about Herculean efforts of naturalists to save an endangered fish as it is about the failed efforts of a coalition of sport fishermen, farmers and other landholders, river rafters, and national environmental activists to prevent construction of a dam across one of the last wild stretches of river in the Tennessee Valley." (Church, p. 720)

This observation demonstrates that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of both the language of the legislation and the public interest. By contrast, the intervention of Congress on behalf of the Tellico Dam builders would demonstrate the preeminence of monetary investment in its decision. This would be a departure from legal readings of the ESA and from the will of the public most directly impacted by the project.t

Consider the goals of the Act. Should there be a hard and fast rule in these situations, or should agencies be permitted to engage in a cost-benefit analysis? Why or why not? If agencies had discretion to engage in cost-benefit analysis, wouldn't all proposed projects be completed?

In its essence, the Endangered Species Act was designed to address impasses exactly like the one confronted in the Tennessee Valley. The danger of allowing cost-benefit analysis to enter into the discourse is that this may produce a monetary way of assessing environmental losses. Here, the discussion on the snail darter might well have centered on the decidedly modest contribution of the species to the region's economic performance as opposed to the danger or excising a species from a habitat.

In fact, it could be argued that the deference to such incongruous cost-benefit analyses is exactly the approach that necessitated the hard and fast rules established by the Endangered Species Act. As the opinion in the TVA v. Hill case notes, it would seem directly counterintuitive to resist application of the law in the capacity for which it was designed. To the point, Rizzardi (2008) reports, "concluding that enjoining completion of the dam is the proper remedy under the ESA, the Court emphasized that "[t]he plain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost." (p. 1)

Applying the phrase 'whatever the cost' here seems to suggest without reservation that a cost-benefit analysis could reveal no possible financial gain that would outweigh the loss of an endangered species.

When should environmental or aesthetic values give way to other values, such as resource development for energy development? Where should the line be drawn?

This is perhaps the most difficult question to confront in dealing with the present case. Though the $100 million dollar investment in a dam whose construction began before the advent of the ESA is a substantial sum to sacrifice, it is far more difficult to place a monetary sum on the survival of a species. This is true not just from the perspective of wildlife preservation but also with consideration to the untold potential impact on the ecology at large. According to the case analysis at CCC (2013), the Supreme Court "cites legislative proceedings foretelling risks that may stem from the 'loss of any endangered species' [original italics]. Habitat destruction, the number one threat to biodiversity, was recognized as such by Congress in its deliberations over the impending law. The ESA ordered that "all methods and procedures which are necessary" should be employed to bring species back from the brink." (CCC, p. 1)