## Facts

- Plaintiffs, including environmental organizations and individuals, sought to permanently enjoin the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) from completing and operating the Tellico Dam and impounding the Little Tennessee River.
- The Tellico Dam project began in 1967, was Congressionally funded, and was near completion after approximately $53 million in expenditures.
- In 1973, the snail darter, a small fish dependent on specific free-flowing shoal habitat, was discovered in the Little Tennessee River.
- In 1975, the Secretary of the Interior listed the snail darter as an endangered species and designated portions of the Little Tennessee River as its critical habitat.
- Evidence indicated that reservoir conditions created by impoundment would eliminate the snail darter’s then-known natural habitat and likely prevent its survival there.
- TVA pursued mitigation efforts, including attempts to transplant snail darters to other waterways, with uncertain long-term success.
- Plaintiffs alleged TVA’s completion and operation of the project would violate ESA § 7 (jeopardy and critical habitat destruction) and ESA § 9 (unlawful “take”).

## Issues

1. Whether completion and operation of the Tellico Dam would “jeopardize the continued existence” of the snail darter or destroy/modify its designated critical habitat in violation of ESA § 7, and whether the project would constitute a prohibited “take” under ESA § 9.
2. Whether the ESA required a permanent injunction stopping a nearly completed, heavily funded federal project, or whether equitable discretion permitted denial of injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court found that impoundment would eliminate the snail darter’s existing river habitat and would jeopardize the species in the project area.
- The court denied a permanent injunction and allowed TVA to complete and operate the Tellico Dam.
- The court relied on the project’s advanced stage, substantial public expenditures, Congress’s continued appropriations after the ESA listing and habitat designation, and TVA’s mitigation efforts.
- The court treated injunctive relief as subject to equitable balancing and declined to halt the project based on practical and fiscal considerations.

## Legal Principles

- ESA § 7 imposes an affirmative duty on federal agencies to act to prevent jeopardy to listed species and destruction or modification of designated critical habitat, but this court read that duty in light of timing and congressional action.
- Continued congressional appropriations for an authorized project, despite awareness of ESA-related impacts, may be treated as evidence that Congress did not intend the ESA to compel abandonment of that project at a late stage.
- Permanent injunctive relief under the ESA was treated by this court as discretionary and subject to equitable balancing, including consideration of completion status, sunk costs, and attempted mitigation.
- ESA § 9’s “take” prohibition was not treated as automatically requiring an injunction against project operation under the circumstances presented.

## Conclusion

The district court concluded that Tellico Dam impoundment would jeopardize the snail darter and eliminate its critical habitat, but held that the ESA did not require a mandatory injunction against a nearly completed, Congressionally funded project and therefore denied permanent injunctive relief.


Hill v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 419 F. Supp. 753 (E.D. Tenn. 1976)