I’ve always had a little bit of a thing for fish…call me crazy, but I think they can be kind of cute sometimes. Especially when they’re so tiny! Don’t get me wrong; I’m a little bit embarrassed by it. I mean, most environmentalist at least try to convince other people that they care about most creatures equally. And I do. But let’s face it: some animals are just more cute than others.
Anyway, the fish in the picture is called a snail darter. They’re really small; adults get to be about three inches long. But their story is pretty interesting, and if you ask me, pretty tragic. It’s a long, strange, twisting tale, but in the end, the tail darters meet an unfortunate end. This is going to be one long post, but trust me, it’ll be worth it. In a few days, I’ll post another entry about my reflections on what exactly the case of the snail darter means to me personally. But for now, just sit back and enjoy!
It starts with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). They provide electricity for more than 109 municipalities, and another 50 cooperatives also get their electricity from the TVA. According to their website, sixty percent of the TVA’s power is generated by fossil fuels (mainly coal), thirty percent comes from nuclear power and the remaining ten comes from dams. All in all, they provide seven states with power.
If you’re an environmentalist, there’s a good chance you have heard or will hear something about the TVA, and odds are, it won’t be positive. In the past, the TVA has been accused of causing or exacerbating many environmental problems, many of them concerning their power plants. Dams? Coal?! Nuclear?! It’s the Axis of Energy Evil (well, mostly. Granted, energy issues are much more complicated than just blaming those three, but for the sake of time and space, we’ll avoid that big mess).
Well, one of the most famous TVA controversies occurred a (relatively) long time ago, and it involves our little friends, the snail darters.
By the 1970s, TVA had built nearly sixty dams with the help of the Army Corps of Engineers. Nearly 2,500 miles of river had been dammed; almost all of the lands around those rivers had turned into ecological wastelands. A small stretch of the Little Tennessee River was one of the few remaining places that hadn’t been destroyed by the TVA’s actions.
It was here that the TVA decided to build the Tellico dam. This dam served almost no economic purpose; it was not going to produce hydroelectric power, nor was it built to regulate the river in order to make shipping easier. Instead, using the power of eminent domain, TVA decided they would take away land from farmers in the area, build Tellico dam, and then create an “industrial city” in order to economically improve the land.
Dare I say this sounds…fishy? Heh heh…
Well, you can imagine how angry citizens in the area were. Taking away land so that TVA could try and build some hypothetical industrial city? It outraged the local community, but despite preliminary court room battles, no judge ordered an injunction (that is, an order to stop the dam’s construction).
It seemed like the citizens were stuck. But luckily for them, our little friends, the snail darters, came to the rescue. Sort of.
In 1973, a biologist by the name of David Etnier discovered a small, tiny little fish called the snail darter. Turns out, they were declared endangered species. The citizens of the community had just been given a little gift from nature.
To understand what happens next, a grasp on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is in order. The modern ESA was signed into law in 1973, the same year that David Etnier discovered the snail darter in the Little Tennessee river. Under the ESA, a section of the Act, Section 7, stated that “All other Federal agencies shall…that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of such endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species…” This is called a roadblock provision. In case you didn’t grasp it the first time around, the ESA prohibits a federal agency from destroying endangered species or from destroying endangered species’ habitat. It also prohibits them from permitting third parties (like businesses or land owners) from destroying endangered species or their habitat, as well.
Pretty cool, right?
A law student by the name of Hiram Hill wrote a paper in 1973 about the Tellico dam and the snail darter. He argued that Section 7 strictly prohibited the continued construction of Tellico dam. Since the Tellico dam was almost certainly going to kill off the remaining snail darters, or at the very least destroy their habitat, it seemed that Section 7 denied TVA the right to build the dam.
To make a long story short, some lawyers working for the community read his paper, and argued it before the courts. It took years, but in 1978, the Supreme Court granted their writ of certiorari, and heard the case (Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hiram Hill, et al.). It was on this decision, it seemed, that the Tellico dam, the snail darters, and the community around the area all depended.
So…who won?
Said Chief Justice Burger, “We begin with the premise that operation of the Tellico Dam will either eradicate the known population of snail darters or destroy their critical habitat. Petitioner [the TVA] does not now seriously dispute this fact.
“Starting from the above premise, two questions are presented: a) would TVA be in violation of the Act [the ESA] if it completed and operated the Tellico Dam as planned? b) if TVA’s actions would offend the Act, is an injunction the appropriate remedy for the violation [that is, if building the dam is illegal, is it okay to order TVA to stop building the dam]? For the reasons stated hereinafter, we hold that both questions must be answered in the affirmative [ed. emphasis].”
Whoo-hoo! The snail darters won! No more dam!
“But…wait a second,” you’re thinking. “I thought this story ends badly for the cute little snail darter?
Well, unfortunately, the story isn’t quite over, yet.
As you could probably imagine, the media at the time was bringing a shit-storm. The nation was divided, and for the most part, the media was not on the side of the snail darters. “How is it,” newspapers were asking, “that a 150 million dollar dam, funded purely out of tax payers pockets, is going down the drain because of a fish?!” (n.b.: apparently, the dam had only cost taxpayers five million dollars at the time…)
You see, this was one of the first tests of the ESA. Just how far would it go to protect endangered species? With the Supreme Court’s ruling, it seemed that it would protect species no matter what.
And that bothered the hell out of a lot of people. Isn’t it a little bit unreasonable, they thought, that a three inch fish can stop the construction of a (supposedly) needed dam?
So, the legislators went back to the legislature and created what some call, “The God Squad,” less irreverently called “The God Committee” by everyone else. Basically, it’s made up of a bunch of government officials who are given the power to vote on whether or not a specific project is exempt from ESA roadblocking. After reviewing information, the God Committee votes on whether or not to grant exemption permits to an agency or a company.
And guess what was the first case that went under review by a God Committee? Yup, the snail darters and Tellico dam.
And guess what happened?
Well, if you think this is where we see the decision to screw over the snail darter, I’m afraid you’re going to be disappointed. The God Committee, in their first ever review of a permit application, denied TVA the right to build Tellico dam. In a fairly scathing statement, Committee Chairmen Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus said, “I hate to see the snail darter get the credit for stopping a project that was so ill-conceived and uneconomic in the first place.”
Wow. Bitch slap.
Now’s when the story turns sad. The snail darter had survived years of courtroom battles and had even managed to squeak past a God Committee hearing. So what caused the demise of the snail darter?
So, did you ever see that episode of the Simpson’s where they go to Washington, D.C., to put try and get a bill passed to stop airplanes from flying over their house? Anyway, the way they get the bill to pass is by attaching their legislation onto a more important piece of legislation, and letting it ride through on the merits of another bill. And it works! And, not surprisingly, this happens all the time (for good and for ill; it’s just a part of the political process, love it or hate it).
In 1979, in the darkened chambers of the House, a rider was attached to a bill. And guess what this rider said? Yup, it utterly disregarded the Supreme Court ruling and the God Committee decision and authorized TVA to continue with the construction of Tellico dam. Since almost no one in the House knew that the rider was attached, except for the committee members who were present when it was attached, the bill passed.
And poor Jimmy Carter, after saying he was going to veto it, signed it into law. Later, he would call the lawyers who represented the community and apologize.
The fate of the snail darter was sealed forever.
Of the estimated 25,000 snail darter that lived in the Little Tennessee River, none remain. Tellico dam now stands today, serving absolutely no purpose. No “industrial city” was created; all that’s there now is a golf course and some upper-class homes. Hell, before they tried to even allow developers do that, you know what the TVA had the gall to do? They tried to make the land they had practically stolen from the farmers into a toxic waste dump. What a joke.
And that’s the end of the story. Luckily for the snail darter as a species, some other snail darters were found in other areas, and biologists were able to transplant a few of them in other places. Their status has been moved from endangered to threatened…but that population of snail darter, that population of 25,000 that lived for generations in the Little Tennessee River, are completely gone forever.
[...] what happens next, a grasp on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is in order…. source: The Tragic Story of the Snail Darter, The Third [...]
Get your facts straight next time. The snail darter is alive and well throughout the Tennessee river watershed.
“In late 1979 the Tellico Dam received an exemption and the Tellico Reservoir was filled. The snail darter is now extinct in that habitat.”
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/3043/Threats-Aquatic-Environments-DAMS.html
[...] a predecessor to the Endangered Species Act (which I’ve talked about extensively in the snail darter post). When the US went to negotiations for the IWC, they represented Alaskan native tribes in [...]
The snail darter survives in the Hiawasse river and elsewhere and was never solely in the Little Tennessee as alleged in the lawsuit. The Polar bears survive in like fashion and will thrive in spite of drilling in ANWR. The Caribou have doubled in number in spite of the Alaska Pipeline. Isn’t it cool?
Again, yes, the snail darter has had its status changed from endangered to threatened, as I mentioned in my post.
However, at the time that the suit was filed, the population of snail darter in the area near Tellico dam was the only one known to exist, and once Tellico dam began to operate, that population was destroyed.
As far as polar bears go, my knowledge of that particular issue is limited.
Regarding the caribou, no, it’s probably not that cool, since the reason their population has doubled is likely due to a removal of natural predators, a change that threatens the health of the ecosystem as a whole; that’s just my hypothesis, however. I don’t have any data to support that statement, but a similar thing happened in Yellowstone National Park with ungulate populations. It wasn’t until the reintroduction of the wolves that the ungulate population began to stabilize.
“”However, at the time that the suit was filed, the population of snail darter in the area near Tellico dam was the only one known to exist, and once Tellico dam began to operate, that population was destroyed.”"”
This is true, however, it’s a separate issue.
The whole TVA controversy was about the survival of a species, and not the survival of a population, or individual animals within a population.
Once a species is extinct, it’s gone forever. If a portion of that species, a population, is reduced or decimated, nd it can be determined that the species would continue to survive and thrive absent of that localized population, then it does not come under the ESA.
If one wants to argue that it is beneficial or desirable to maintain a habitat or protection for a population, even though the species as a whole is not in danger, this is a valid position to take, and may have significant merit, but to invoke the ESA in such cases dilutes the authority and intent of the ESA.
It’s also important to acknowledge that extinction is a natural process. It would occur even if there were no humans on the planet. The rate of extinction is greater as the result of human activity, and thus it is important to judiciously apply the ESA where it is appropriate to protect species who would otherwise survive.
Unfortunately, the ESA has been misapplied in many cases and used as a political football by groups more interested in thwarting industry and development that they view as inherently “evil” because of their disdain for free-market capitalism, than they are with a genuine concern for the “environment” and conservation. The emotionally charged and biased elements in the environmental movement turn science on its head and removes the possibility of rational decision and policy-making.
“”Regarding the caribou, no, it’s probably not that cool, since the reason their population has doubled is likely due to a removal of natural predators, a change that threatens the health of the ecosystem as a whole; that’s just my hypothesis, however.”"
I’m really glad that you brought up the North Slope and Alaska Pipeline development. This is a textbook case of where reasonableness won out and resulted in wise development.
The developers of that project initially met with little opposition, and it looked like they would be allowed to rush into the building phase using pipeline designs that reflected less concern for the environmental impact than with keeping costs low and getting into production as quickly as possible.
Had environmental objections not been raised, and the pipeline been built per the original specs and methods, not only would the environment been put at great risk from the resulting breaks in the pipeline (faulty design), but it would have been an economic disaster for the developers as they would have been shut down or faced with expensive retrofitting to cure the design and construction flaws.
Happily, thanks to environmental concerns coming to the fore, the developers were forced to go back and redesign and rethink the construction of the pipeline, with a more sound knowledge and background of the unique conditions that existed there. Although delayed, and more costly, the pipeline went through, the much-needed oil flowed, and the environment has not been significantly impacted to this day.
The groups opposed to the pipeline development on environmental grounds were forced to compromise. They wanted NO development initially. The developers were forced into costly delays an increased costs. The result was a near-perfect balance of interests. Win-win, which is the way it should be, IMHO.
Bear in mind that it only worked because the developer could build the pipeline in a responsible way, and the market for their product could afford to pay the increased cost of the final product.
I firmly believe that the best way to increase the implementation of sound environmental practices and policies is to ensure that our economy is strong and that our overall standard of living remains high. This way, we can all afford to be good stewards of the environment and the resources we have.
Cheap energy has been the main ingredient in the success and wealth of our nation. With so much wealth comes the luxury of being good stewards of the environment.
The trend today is to make energy less available and more expensive by government fiat and legislation. I believe this is ultimately going to result in less concern for the environment and less “reasonableness” on both sides of the issue.
As people find it harder to heat or cool their homes and more of their paycheck goes into simply getting to and from work, I think the backlash to the Green Movement could be devastating to reasonable environmentalism.
Unless we are willing to enact mandatory abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, or some other means of curtailing a growing population, we are faced with difficult choices in weighing environmental concerns with the needs of a growing population.
It is not helpful in achieving a reasonable balance when sound science is replaced with shrill rhetoric, exaggerated or “faked science”, or crying wolf too many times.
I am one of a growing number of people who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a massive fraud, and that saying C02 levels cause climate change is like saying wet sidewalks cause rain.
I’ve studied the science behind AGW since the nineties, and the “coming Ice Age” before that. I believe that the truth will eventually come out, and that the result will be public distrust and skepticism of genuine scientific concerns that may arise in the future.
I like all animals, but particularly Polar Bears. If I believed they were in jeopardy from my carbon footprint, I’d be walking or riding my bike rather than driving, and I’d be out there marching for C02 reductions. But it is all bunk, and the good news is that the polar bear will go on… even if there were to be significant warming in their habitat from natural climate change.
I also like clean air and clean water, and believe there is much more we can be doing to improve the quality of both, and also preserve a high standard of living, good health, and personal freedom.
I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management from Humboldt State University. I didn’t work on the Alaska pipeline, but during that time knew people who did, and was a commercial fisherman in Alaska, so I followed the debate and development first-hand during that period.
FYI, Caribou populations, like all wild populations fluctuate cyclically over time in response to a variety of environmental conditions. I think it was quite likely that the pipeline has had no effect, or only a minimal effect.
To say that reducing the number of predators has resulted in larger numbers of caribou is in error, I think, although it could be one factor in an extraordinary situation. Generally, predator numbers are more controlled by prey population numbers than the other way around, and lag behind prey population levels. There is a correlation, but you have it backwards.
Similarly, there is a strong correlation between temperature and C02 levels, but a close examination of the data reveals that C02 levels lag behind temperature changes… indicating that temperatures affect C02 levels, and not the other way around.
The next abuse of power by misuse of the ESA.
I live in Oregon, and invoking the ESA to “save” the Spotted Owl resulted in destroying the timber industry, and thousands of jobs in small, timber-dependent communities around the state. This may seem a small thing to most people, but it wasn’t for the families experiencing it.
It turns out that the Spotted Owl’s numbers were more a function of competition from its cousin, the Barred Owl, than it was on available habitat. Score one more for bad science and a heavy-handed government.
Now we have the new specter of ESA-abuse with the addition of Polar Bears to the threatened species list. Not because their numbers are threatened or even declining… but because they might decline or become extinct as the result of Global Warming.
This will result will be giving the authority to the government to control virtually every aspect of our lives, from where and when and how we can travel, to how much and how we heat and cool our homes, to any number of other fascistic mechanisms the bureaucrats can dream up under the guise of saving the Polar Bear from extinction arising from fictitious AGW.
I know many of you reading this right now are cheering, and believe that even if it is based on fraud, that at least forcing citizens to live in a more modest and environmentally sound way is a good thing. You only believe this way because you either lack imagination or don’t have a significant knowledge of or appreciation of history.
“The whole TVA controversy was about the survival of a species, and not the survival of a population, or individual animals within a population.”
Yes, but like I said, at the time, the specific population of snail darter around Tellico Dam was the only one that the lawyers and scientists knew about; it was an issue of extinction to those individuals.
“If a portion of that species, a population, is reduced or decimated, nd [sic] it can be determined that the species would continue to survive and thrive absent of that localized population, then it does not come under the ESA.”
Actually, that’s not necessarily true. Under the ESA, a specific population of a species can be listed as endangered or threatened and thus be guaranteed all the legal protections granted by the ESA. The northern rockies gray wolf population is an example.
As for the polar bear stuff, that’s not really what this post is about, so while I appreciate your comment, I’m not going to respond to that aspect of your post. Thanks, Bardford!
I’m from East Tennessee. In fact, I’m from Monroe County very close to where the Tellico Dam was built. My grandfather was one of the lawyers that helped keep the project going. We don’t have shit in Monroe County. Our average income in Monroe county is 30k per household. The industry that exists around the lake has helped many struggling families to earn a decent manufacturing wage. I’ve worked in those plants, and I’ve seen the jobs that were created solely because of the development around the lake. As for the snail darter, my granddad found them all over east Tennessee when he was a kid. They were never truly endangered in the most logical sense of the word.
“To say that reducing the number of predators has resulted in larger numbers of caribou is in error, I think, although it could be one factor in an extraordinary situation. Generally, predator numbers are more controlled by prey population numbers than the other way around, and lag behind prey population levels. There is a correlation, but you have it backwards. ”
But if there are not as many predators, wouldn’t that mean that less prey animals were being killed, therefore more animals alive to breed, meaning even more prey animals? I don’t know, that’s just what I would think. I just come up on this post looking up the Snail Darter because my family has some property bordered by Duncan Creek and I heard that there were some living there, and I figured that I would look them up.