Endangered Species Act

Name:

School:

Course/ Number:

October 31, 2011

Instructor’s Name:

Endangered Species Act

Background to the Case

The Tennis Valley Authority (TVA) is a government body served with the responsibility of carrying put development around the TennisValley such as engaging in flood control projects, navigation, agriculture, and electricity generation to promote the economic welfare of the community. The Tellico project was one of its approved projects to undertake the building of a dam in the Tennessee River. With this project, the TVA intended to transform 30 miles of the river into a reservoir with the building of a dam. In the upstream river, a Dart Snail fish was found in 1973 that raised great concern after the United States passed the Endangered Species Act several months after the fish was found (invispress.com, 2010). The act stated that endangered species should be preserved under all purposes. The project was under construction in the habitat of the fish, and us such, it would destroy it, leaving the endangered species in the verge of extinction. The Snail darter was named an endangered species, allowing a lawsuit against the TVA upon declaration that the fish only lived in that area. After the declaration, all federal agencies were required to undertake actions necessary to ensure that their operation do not jeopardize existence of such endangered environment under which endangered species live.

Case Details

Respondents brought the issue to enjoin the completion of the dam and reservoir that was near completion to the district court. They claimed its completion would render the snail darter extinct since its habitat would be completely modified, and better still, would be violating the Endangered Species Act. Upon trial, the district court dismissed the claim on considerations that it was true that this project would jeopardize the continued existence, but noting that the congress, fully aware of the issue, continued to fund the project. It was concluded that in some cases, where a federal project is so near completion that modifying it is not possible without much unreasonable consequences, a project would be continued. Later, the Appellate court reversed this decision, ordering the enjoining of the conclusion of the scheme until when the congress through an appropriate legislation decides to exempt the TVA from abiding to the Endangered Species Act, or when the snail darter is declared out of the endangered species or when its critical habitat is redefined materially.

TVA later appealed after the decision, citing that the term action in the Endangered Species Act does not refer to the completion of the dam. They claimed it only applied to actions that were not yet approved, but not those already near completions. They also claimed the act did not refer to the project since it was commenced before long before the act was put in place, and as such, did not include Tellico project. It was clear in the act that any action jeopardizing an endangered species should not be undertaken, hence, in terms of the law, completion was considered an action that so violated the act. The TVA further presented a proposal to relocate the snail darter but still was not successful. They also cited the fact the congress by continued funding of the project meant it was supposed to continue. They also argued that the court should consider the economic loss due to the money already invested in the project that would be a loss to the taxpayers. It was still found not credible to continue the project considering the congress meant to protect such habitats from modification under all costs since loss of such a species had no calculable value.

Held

It was held that the Endangered Species Act in its terms prohibited any interference with the Tennessee River that would jeopardize the critical habitat of the snail darter. It was held that the act was in plain language and the act did not make any exemptions to any project whether commenced before the act or after. It was also held that the congress had the full intention to stop the completion of the project under all circumstanced under all cost as stated in the act, which the congress passed. It was quite clear that the congress gave first priority to the endangered species before completion of any economic projects. It was also held that the court of appeal made no mistake in ordering the halting of the dam despite the congress continuing to fund the project since all it was served with was making and passing the laws, while the judiciary is served with enforcing the law, hence no mistake was made in halting the project under this claim. On the claim of the act not including the completion of Tellico, it was held that any federal agency should ensure their actions do not jeopardize the endangered species. Hence, completion of the dam was an action that jeopardized the natural habitat of the snail darter; hence, their claim of exemption was dismissed (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978).

Issues in the Case

The questioned that was presented before the Appellate court was whether the Endangered Species Act of 1973 required the court to halt the actions of a federal project so near completion that was passed before the act was enacted when in accordance to the act; the secretary of the interior decided that the dam would jeopardize the endangered species. The question was whether the court had any power over the congress to undertake such a decision, where the court declared that the congress made and passed law while the judiciary enforced them. Hence, it was not up to the congress to decide on the matter, but the judiciary. The other issue was whether the continued funding of the project by the congress while aware of the ongoing case after the act was passed implied that the project should continue. It was decided that the congress expressly intended to halt the project, considering they passed the law while aware of the issue; hence, they gave first priority to endangered species before the economic benefits of the project (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978).

References

Invispress.com. (2010). Environmental Law: TennesseeValley Authority v. Hill

437 U.S. 153 (1978). Retrieved from http://www.invispress.com/law/environmental/tennessee.html

U.S. Supreme Court. (1978). Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978). Retrieved from http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/153/case.html