7749 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4O REFLECTIONS ON THE ACT' species altogether from any protection under the act, or to other- wise frustrate protection efforts can invariably be counted on to begin their remarks with some version of "I am a strong sup- porter of protecting endangered species" (usually accompanied by a grandiloquent reference to the majesty of the bald eagle). Most of them follow that introduction with an all-important "however" (typically accompanied by a sneering reference to the snail darter). To understand this seeming contradiction, one must consider the political history of the Endangered Species Act. That history can usefully be divided into two eras. The watershed dividing them was the great tumult precipitated by the battle over the snail darter and the Tellico Dam project. Until that event, little controversy attended the federal endangered species program. The procedures for adding species to the threatened and endan- gered lists were fairly simple, and proposals to list particular species seldom met with strenuous objection. The act's all- important Section 7, requiring federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any species, had not precipitated any major controversies. Protect- ing species threatened by extinction was perceived, both by the public and by its elected officials, as a good thing-or at least a harmless thing. Then came the test. The federal courts (ultimately including the Supreme Court), the Congress, newspaper editorial writers throughout the country, and countless others all wrestled with the same question: Which was more important-to prevent the extinction of a fish that virtually no one had ever heard of or to build another TVA dam that virtually no one had ever heard of either? Editorial writers either ridiculed the notion that protect- ing amere fish could justify scrapping amultimillion-dollar dam or rushed to point out that the dam was a wasteful expendi- ture of tax dollars regardless of its environmental impact. Im- plicit in the latter argument, of course, was the not very reassuring notion that a truly worthwhile dam would clearly be too important to sacrifice for a mere fish. The Supreme Court did not have to wrestle with these value judgments; its role was simply to discern the will of Congress. Congress clearly meant to save the fish, not -the dam, said the court. Congress, however, had the last word and said otherwise. Since that upheaval, life has not been the same-and not just