in addition,the legislative history reveals an explicit congressional decision to require agencies to afford first priority to the declared national policy of saving endangered species. The pointed omission of the type of qualifying language previously included in endangered species priority the “primary missions” of federal agencies
one might dispute the applicability of these examples to the Tellico Dam by saying that in this case the burden on the public through the loss of the snail darter. But neither the Endangered Species Act nor Art. III of the Constitution provides federal courts with authority to make such fine utilitarian calculation.on the contrary,the plain language of the act, buttressed by its legislative history,shows clearly that Congress viewed the value of endangered species as"incalculable"Quite obviously,it would be difficult for a court to balance the loss of a sum certain -even $100 mllion -against a congressionally declared "incalculable" value,even assuming we had the power to engage in such a weighing process,which we emphatically do not.
We are urged to view the Endangered species Act "reasonably," and hence shape a remedy "that accords with some modicum of common sense and the public weal." But is that our function? We have no expert knowledge on the subject of endangered species,much less do we have a mandate from the people to strike a balance of equities on the side of the Tellco Dam. congress has spoken in the plainest of words,making it abundantly clear that the balance has been struck in favor of affording endangered species the highest of priorities.
Our individual appraisal of the wisdom or a particular of a particular course consciously selected by the congress is ti be put aside in the process of interpreting a statute.Once the meaning of an enactment is discerned and its constitutionality determined,the judicial process comes to an end.