About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1979 Utah L. Rev. 701 (1979)
The Efficacy of Federal Environmental Legislation: The TVA Experience with Endangered Species and Clean Air

handle is hein.journals/utahlr1979 and id is 711 raw text is: The Efficacy of Federal Environmental Legislation: The TVA Experience with Endangered Species and Clean Airt John H. Gibbons* Holly Gwin** William Chandler*** I. INTRODUCTMON Ten years have elapsed since the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),' and much press and public debate have been devoted to this and other federal environ- mental protection legislation. One of the most hotly contested argu- ments has centered on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)2 and the infamous snail darter, while the Clean Air Act (CAA)3 with its many amendments has been the subject of much additional controversy. Because the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has been linked closely to each of these controversies, its ability and willingness to comply with these two acts can serve as a focal point for evaluation of the reasonableness and effectiveness of such legis- lation.' The primary thesis of this Article is that the review process mandated by this legislation has provided, by and large, reasonable environmental protection while still permitting responsible develop- ment. Much of the dissatisfaction with this legislation can be traced to a misunderstanding of its intent and effect. To develop this the- t This article was written while the authors were affiliated with the Energy, Environ- ment & Resources Center, University of Tennessee (Knoxville). The authors wish to ac- knowledge the helpful assistance in writing and editing this article provided by Ronald J. Bigelow, third-year student, University of Utah College of Law. * Director, Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress; former Director, Energy, Environment & Resources Center, University of Tennessee (Knoxville) (1974-1979); B.S., 1949, Randolph-Macon College; Ph.D., 1954, Duke University. ** J.D., 1979, University of Tennessee. *** Research Staff, Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress; former Senior Research Associate, Energy, Environment & Resources Center, University of Tennes- see (Knoxville) (1977-1979); B.S., 1972, University of Tennessee. 1. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4361 (1976)(originally enacted as National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852). 2. 16 U.S.C. §§ 4601-9, 668dd, 715i, 715s, 1362, 1371, 1372, 1402, 1531-1543 (1976 & Supp. I 1977), as amended by Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-632, 92 Stat. 3751. 3. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4362, 7401-7626 (Supp. I 1977). 4. In comparing TVA to other utilities, it is important to remember that TVA occupies the rather unique position of a government corporation. As such, it has tremendous contrac- tual and reinvestment flexibility, is exempt from many local regulations, and can adjust rates