Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill
Under the United States Endangered Species Act, a federal dam which would destroy the critical habitat of an endangered fish could not be completed, whatever the cost already incurred.
Facts
The Tennessee Valley Authority had almost completed the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River, at a cost of over 100 million dollars, when a small fish, the snail darter, was discovered in the river and listed as an endangered species. Completion of the dam would destroy its only known habitat. Local residents and conservationists sued to stop the dam, under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 1973, which required federal agencies to ensure that their actions did not jeopardise the continued existence of endangered species.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the dam could not be completed. Chief Justice Burger said that the plain intent of Congress in enacting the Act was to halt and reverse the trend towards species extinction, whatever the cost, and that the court could not balance the value of the dam against the loss of the species, because Congress had already decided that endangered species should be given the highest priority. Congress later passed legislation exempting the dam from the Act, and it was completed. The case is a landmark in the protection of biodiversity.
Related cases on nature conservation and habitats
- Commission v Germany (Leybucht Dykes) Case C-57/89, [1991] ECR I-883
- Coöperatie Mobilisation for the Environment UA v College van gedeputeerde staten van Limburg Joined Cases C-293/17 and C-294/17, EU:C:2018:882
- Grace and Sweetman v An Bord Pleanála Case C-164/17, EU:C:2018:593
- Holohan v An Bord Pleanála Case C-461/17, EU:C:2018:883
- Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee v Staatssecretaris van Landbouw (Waddenzee) Case C-127/02, [2004] ECR I-7405
- People Over Wind and Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta Case C-323/17, EU:C:2018:244
- R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2, [2011] 1 WLR 268
- R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (Lappel Bank) Case C-44/95, [1996] ECR I-3805
Studying environmental law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
