Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
"Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill" is a landmark Supreme Court case that highlights the intersection of environmental protection and federal development projects. The case arose in the context of the Tellico Dam project, initiated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as part of efforts to control flooding and generate electricity in a struggling region. Legal challenges emerged from environmentalists and local stakeholders due to the presence of the snail darter, a fish species listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
When the U.S. district court allowed construction to proceed, the ruling was contested and ultimately reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, leading to an appeal by the TVA to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision, affirming that proceeding with the dam's completion would violate the Endangered Species Act and that endangered species should be prioritized over developmental interests. Dissenting opinions argued for a more flexible interpretation of the law, suggesting that the longstanding commitment to the dam's construction should not be disregarded.
Following the Court's ruling, Congress quickly moved to amend federal law to exempt the Tellico Dam from the Endangered Species Act, allowing its completion in 1979. Interestingly, despite initial fears, the snail darter was not driven to extinction by the dam's construction, as populations were later discovered in other locations. This case underscored the tensions between environmental conservation efforts and economic development initiatives in the United States.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill
The Case: U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding a possible violation of the Endangered Species Act
Date: Decided on June 15, 1978
In the case of Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in passing the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Congress had made “a conscious decision to give endangered species priority over the primary missions of federal agencies.”
Tellico Dam was part of a Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)water resource and development project designed to control flooding, generate electric power, and promote industrial development in an economically depressed area. Opponents of the dam—a coalition of environmentalists and local farmers and landowners—initiated legal action to stop the dam’s construction, which had begun in 1967, based on the presence of the snail darter, a small fish that had been placed on the federal endangered species list in October, 1975. The Little Tennessee River above the Tellico Dam project was considered the snail darter’s critical habitat.
After the U.S. district court ruled that construction would be allowed to continue, opponents of the dam immediately appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and enjoined construction. The TVA then appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and in the case of Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill the Court upheld the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, writing for the Court, agreed with the Court of Appeals’ opinion that the TVA would violate the Endangered Species Act (1973) if it completed the dam because the plain intent of Congress in enacting that law was to halt species extinction. The plain language of the statute, supported by its legislative history, revealed “a conscious decision to give endangered species priority over the primary missions of federal agencies.” Since the statutory language and legislative history also revealed that Congress placed an incalculable value on endangered species, the Court stated that it would not engage in any “fine utilitarian calculations” and find that the loss of an almost completed dam at a cost of more than $100 million would outweigh the loss of the snail darter. The statute did provide hardship exemptions, but the Court noted that none applied to the Tellico Dam project, nor did continuing congressional appropriations for the dam constitute an implied repeal of the statute. Since the completion of the dam would destroy an endangered species, the Court held that the statute required an injunction forbidding its completion.
Justice Lewis Powell, joined by Justice Harry Blackmun, dissented. Condemning the Court’s literalist interpretation of the Endangered Species Act, Powell argued that Congress could not have intended for the Court to give retroactive effect to the statute and disregard Congress’s commitment for twelve years to complete the Tellico Dam project. He had no doubt that Congress would amend the statute so that the dam and its reservoir would serve their intended purposes instead of providing “a conversation piece for incredulous tourists.”
Justice William Rehnquist, also dissenting, argued that the Endangered Species Act did not mandate the U.S. district court to use its equitable powers and enjoin the TVA from completing the dam, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to issue the injunction. In the face of conflicting evidence, the district court had quite properly decided that the public harm from the failure to complete the dam outweighed the need to preserve the habitat of the snail darter.
Congress responded swiftly to the Court’s decision by attaching an amendment to a 1979 energy bill that exempted the Tellico Dam from all federal laws, including the Endangered Species Act. The dam was completed in November, 1979. The snail darter was not, as feared, extinguished by the impoundment of the Little Tennessee River; although the snail darter population there was destroyed, other colonies of the fish were discovered elsewhere.
Bibliography
Ferrey, Steven. “The Endangered Species Act.” In Environmental Law: Examples and Explanations. 5th ed. New York: Aspen, 2010.
Murchison, Kenneth M. The Snail Darter Case: TVA Versus the Endangered Species Act. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007.