imagevorti.blogg.se

If a controversy arose, the amendment called for the creation of a special committee consisting of various Cabinet level members and at least one member from the affected state where the project in question was located. The idea was to create a mechanism whereby a specific project could be excluded from the Endangered Species Act. Howard Baker was a leading sponsor of an amendment to the Endangered Species Act that was passed into law in November 1978. On the other hand, Baker had not taken a position before. Duncan had been a long-time congressional supporter of the project. In his book The Fishes of Tennessee' David Etnier later wrote: "the snail darter had become almost a household word, and in current usage 'snail darter types' is approximately synonymous with 'ultra-liberal environmental activists.'" Two Tennessee legislators get involved Ĭongressman John Duncan, Sr., whose district included Tellico, and Senator Howard Baker. Supporters of the dam project, who believed that it would serve a much larger public good than protection of the snail darter, reacted in an effort to rework the Endangered Species Act.

According to Burger, this would force the court "to ignore the ordinary meaning of plain language." Although more than $100 million had been spent on the project by 1978, and the dam was substantially finished, the court could not allow the TVA to finish the project. Since that legislative power has been exercised, it is up to the executive branch to administer the law and for the Judiciary to enforce it when, as here, enforcement has been sought.īurger's opinion emphasized that, as written, the Endangered Species Act explicitly forbade the completion of such projects as Tellico if the Secretary of Interior had determined that such a project would likely result in the elimination of a species. Congress has spoken in the plainest words, making it clear that endangered species are to be accorded the highest priorities. Completion of the Tellico Dam project would violate the Act, so the Court of Appeals did not err by ordering the project to be enjoined.An appropriations committee's expression does not operate to repeal or modify substantive legislation. A contrary policy would violate the rules of both Houses of Congress, which provide that appropriations measures may not change existing substantive law.

When voting on appropriations measures, legislators are entitled to assume that the funds will be devoted to purposes that are lawful and not for any purpose forbidden. Though statements in Appropriations Committee Reports expressed the view of the Committees either that the Act did not apply to Tellico or that the dam should be completed regardless of the Act's provisions, nothing in the TVA appropriations measures passed by Congress said that the Tellico project was to be completed regardless of the Act's requirements.Congress, moreover, foresaw that on occasion this would require agencies to alter ongoing projects in order to fulfill the Act's goals. The pointed omission of the type of qualified language previously included in endangered species legislation reveals a conscious congressional design to give endangered species priority over the "primary missions" of federal agencies. It is clear from the Act's legislative history that Congress intended to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction.The language of the Act made no exceptions for projects like Tellico that were well under way when Congress passed the act.The court replied to the Tennessee Valley Authority's arguments and expanded on its decision: 153 (1978), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for the majority. If the act has such an effect, which is contrary to the Committee's understanding of the intent of Congress in enacting the Endangered Species Act, funds should be appropriated to allow these projects to be completed and their benefits realized in the public interest, the Endangered Species Act not withstanding. This committee has not viewed the Endangered Species Act as preventing the completion and use of these projects which were well under way at the time the affected species were listed as endangered. A 1977 Senate Appropriations Committee report stated: Appropriations committees in both the House and Senate had taken a strong position against stopping the dam and reservoir project in order to protect the snail darter. The United States Congress had been inconsistent regarding the snail darter and the Endangered Species Act. 2 Two Tennessee legislators get involved.