by Edwin G. Davis

A momentous U. S. Supreme Court decision on Wednesday, March 19, passed almost unnoticed by the news media, especially television.

The case, Bennett v. Spear, 95-813, involved the federal government taking the irrigation water of some Oregon farmers to protect two species of scrap fish. The value of the farmers' land dropped from $100 to $20 per acre, and they sued for damages. Lower courts supported the Clinton administration, which claimed that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) could only be used to challenge ''actions that harm species,'' but the high court unanimously rejected that argument.

''Economic consequences are an explicit concern of the Act,'' wrote Justice Scalia.

As a result, Northwest landowners, utility ratepayers, counties, and others are no longer completely at the mercy of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Act. Some questions remain, however.

Can the Bonneville Power Administration recover the billions of ratepayer dollars it has had to spend in a futile effort to save the declining salmon? Logging was forbidden on 11 million acres of Northwest forest because of the spotted owl. Nearly all of it is on public land, and counties would have received a quarter of the money from any timber sales in their counties for roads and schools. Can such counties now sue to collect the lost revenues?

Whether these and countless other damages nationwide can all be collected or not, the federal government will now at least have to consider the economic consequences of declaring species endangered and naming areas as critical habitat for them.

Does this ''gut'' the ESA? Absolutely not. The federal government can still protect endangered or threatened species. The difference is that any harm this does may now have to be paid for by the people who supposedly benefit---the general public---instead of being borne by the unfortunate landowners or other entities alone.

Environmental groups will cry that we can't afford to save all the species that should be saved now, but what they're saying is that the public won't be willing to spend their tax dollars on that instead of something else. Perhaps so, but the federal government is certainly better able to afford the cost than some Oregon farmers and others like them.

Will less land and water be devoted to saving species than before? Probably. You can get a lot more land and water at gun point, or the threat of it, and without having to pay for the economic harm done than if you have to pay. There are compensating benefits, however.

Land ownership, including water rights, consists of the right to use a given piece of real estate. If some of that use is taken, or the value harmed in some way, the owner is entitled to compensation. According to the Supreme Court, the ESA says so. If it didn't, it would be unconstitutional. That right is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

Since the ESA was signed by President Nixon in 1973, this well-intentioned law has been administered in such a way that it has done little tangible good, cost taxpayers billions, cost private citizens and other entities even more, and denied thousands of Americans their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Twenty-four years is a long time to wait for justice. Our hearts should go out to the victims of the ESA who have died in poverty during those years and to their survivors, and our thanks to those who finally won this victory for citizens against the tyranny of the federal government. How strange that a country that forbids quartering soldiers in any house without the owner's consent has for almost a quarter of a century forced landowners to quarter plants and animals on their land, or to use their water, and even denied the owners legal recourse for damages.

At least the survivors of such victims and the current victims now have the possibility of seeking a remedy in court.

This is hardly a cause for unrestrained celebration, however. All we're talking about is a chance to take on the federal government in court, a daunting prospect even for those with youth and good health, deep pockets, and steely determination. Nevertheless, it is reason to breath a heartfelt, ''Finally!'' and to hope.

Ed Davis is a Spokane writer and property rights advocate.