Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill

Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram Hill et al., or TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case and the Court's first interpretation of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. After the discovery of the snail darter fish in the Little Tennessee River in August 1973, a lawsuit was filed alleging that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)'s Tellico Dam construction was in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs argued dam construction would destroy critical habitat and endanger the population of snail darters. It was decided by a 6-3 vote, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hill, et al. and granted an injunction stating that there would be conflict between Tellico Dam operation and the explicit provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, affirmed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in granting an injunction. This decision by the Supreme Court to not allow exemptions confirmed that Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was a strong substantive provision and helped shape federal environmental law. The case is commonly cited as an example of the strict construction-plain meaning canon of construction, and the equitable principle that courts cannot balance equities to override statutory mandates unless on constitutional grounds.

Background

History of Endangered Species Act

Passed by Congress a large majority in 531-4 vote and signed by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973 with the purpose of protecting and recovering "imperiled species and the ecosystems upon which they depend," the Endangered Species Act provides the strongest federal protection against species loss. The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to evaluate if actions taken or permitted by the federal government may harm listed species or the continued existence of listed species or their critical habitat. Once a species is listed as "endangered" or "threatened," the ESA prohibits the "taking" of listed animals and plants which makes it unlawful "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct." Unknowingly at the time, Congress had passed a controversial statute that created a forum which brought into question the merits of government projects and presented a political question of balancing the benefits of species preservation and the economic cost of preservation.

Parties involved

Tennessee Valley Authority

thumbnail|right|Location of Tellico Dam

The Tennessee Valley Authority is a federally owned utility corporation created in 1933 during the Great Depression. At the time of its creation, its mission was to help strengthen economic development of the Tennessee River basin, a region hit with high unemployment where the per capita income was less than half the national average. The publicly owned corporation provides flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River system and assists utilities and state and local governments with economic development. The Tellico Dam project would be the last of 68 dams constructed in the Tennessee River Valley. TVA argued that the project would provide recreational benefits and allow for real estate development along the reservoir.

Hiram Hill, et al.

Hiram (Hank) Hill was a second year law student at the University of Tennessee. Hiram Hill was spending time with Dr. David Etnier, a biologist and professor, who had discovered the snail darter while scuba diving in the Little Tennessee River. Hill brought the snail darter to the attention of Zygmunt J.B. Plater, a law professor, and asked if the completion of the Tellico Dam and the potential effect on the fish under the Endangered Species Act would be a suitable topic for an environmental law paper. submitted a petition to the Fish and Wildlife Service to list the snail darter as endangered. In the Federal Register, the FWS ruled that the species was indeed endangered and designated mile 0.5 to 17 of the Little Tennessee River as critical habitat for snail darters. TVA rejected the Fish and Wildlife Service's interpretation of ESA and continued to receive funding for the Tellico Dam.

On February 28, 1976 Hill et al., filed a citizen's suit seeking an injunction and claimed that TVA was in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Judge Taylor presided over the case and on May 25, 1976 he found that the dam would eliminate the fish and its habitat, but he refused to consider balancing the alternate development of the river, and refused to enjoin completion of the Tellico Dam.

On January 31, 1977 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Taylor's decision and issued an injunction forbidding the completion of the dam. As part of the amendment Congress created the Endangered Species Committee composed of seven senior officials:

:* Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,

:* Administrator of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

:* Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers,

:* Secretary of Agriculture,

:* Secretary of the Army,

:* Secretary of the Interior, and

:* a representative of the state in question.

The committee has the authority to exempt federal agencies from provisions in Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. An exemption could be granted if a majority of the committee members found:

: (a) the federal project is of regional or national significance,

: (b) there is no "reasonable and prudent alternative," and

: (c) the project as proposed "clearly outweighs the alternatives."

If approved, the extinction of a species would be allowed and the agency would be required to implement a mitigation plan.

The Tellico Dam project was reviewed by the so-called "God Committee" on January 23, 1979 and was unanimously denied an exemption based on economic factors. Chairman Andrus stated, "I hate to see the snail darter get the credit for stopping a project that was ill-conceived and uneconomic in the first place." The snail darter is still on the Endangered Species List, though it was down-graded to "threatened" after being successfully transplanted into other river systems.

Role in subsequent high profile environmental cases

{| class="wikitable"

!|Case

!|Issue

!|Holding

|Washington Toxics Coalition v. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004 || The environmental organization, WTC, argued use of 54 pesticides with active ingredients may harm endangered or threatened salmon and steelhead in the waters of the Pacific Northwest. WTC filed suit against the EPA to force consulting compliance under the ESA || District court upheld an injunction banning the use of the 54 pesticides within the proscribed distance of waters supporting salmon populations in California, Oregon, and Washington.

|Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper Inc., 2009 || Under the Clean Water Act facilities are regulated to use the "Best Available Technology" to reduce adverse impacts to the environment. The case determined whether agencies may use cost-benefit analysis when choosing a technology to meet performance standards. || The Court determined the EPA was allowed to use cost-benefit analysis when determining BAT standards.

|Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 1995 || Sweet Home Chapter brought suit against the Secretary of Interior and the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service challenging the interpretation of the term "take" in the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiff argued that the interpretation of "harm" under "takings" was too broad and any commercial business would indirectly impact habitat and species. || The Court ruled in favor of the Department of Interior finding "that Congress intended an expansive interpretation that encompasses habitat modification."

References

External links

TVA home page
Department of Justice
Endangered Species Act
Boston College-Snail Darter
Lawyer who served as counsel at the trial and appellate levels