The following Chico Enterprise Record editorial (1.13.15) is excellent. The paper presents the big picture to readers in a very clear and readable manner. The arguments they present regarding impacts to the Delta smelt highlight how the fish have also helped slow down the draining of the NorthState – the goal of the many of the junior water rights claimants south of the Delta.

Little fish could be savior for overtapped delta

It took all of, oh, a couple of minutes for big water districts in the San Joaquin Valley to criticize the U. S. Supreme Court on Monday for choosing fish over people. If only the question were that easy.

Farmers and cities in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California like to dumb down the argument to just that — the delta smelt vs. the thirsty masses.

But it’s not just about the 3-inch fish. The smelt don’t get much support because they’re not even a sport fish. You can’t catch them with a rod and reel, or sell them in fish markets like the more celebrated salmon.

Delta smelt, though, are a marker species, the canary in the delta coal mine. When they start going away, it means the delta ecosystem is in bad shape and other species will follow. That’s what the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service said back in 2008. The U. S. Supreme Court upheld that biological opinion Monday, agreeing with an earlier ruling by the 9th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals that was challenged to the highest level.

After the Fish and Wildlife Service opinion, what followed were restrictions on pumping of water from the delta to farmers and cities down south.

The farmers and cities howled. Who ever heard of a delta smelt, and why are they more important than feeding the world?

Well, first, that argument ignores the question of whether anybody south of the delta should have any expectation whatsoever that they were entitled to that water more than the salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, striped bass, sea lions — and yes, the smelt — that rely on at least some fresh water flowing out of the rivers and into the Pacific Ocean.

Farms and cities were plopped down in arid deserts without much thought given to reliable water supplies, particularly in summer and drought years. They figured the delta faucet would always be turned on. Bad assumption.

Then San Joaquin farmers compounded the problem by taking row crops such as beans, alfalfa, tomatoes and cotton, and replanting the land with more profitable orchards, such as almonds and citrus. The difference between row crops and orchards is that in a drought — always an inevitability in California — farmers can choose not to plant row crops if they aren’t going to get enough water that year. They cannot fallow the orchards. Water is needed yearround to keep the trees alive, and the trees are a significant investment.

The delta ecosystem — that includes the smelt — shouldn’t have to pay for the poor decisions of San Joaquin farmers and cities.

Then there’s the question of why fish matter.

Nobody should be surprised by environmental restrictions. The government and the courts have long recognized that you can’t just take whatever the environment has. Most have learned from the mistakes of the past, but those with dollar signs for pupils conveniently forget at times.

Even where water is more abundant — here, for example — farmers have learned to co- exist with the habitat in times of crisis. Sometimes they are forced to do so by the government. San Joaquin Valley farmers who feel put off by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling should know there is some precedent. When salmon stocks dwindled in the Sacramento River system, north state farmers made many expensive improvements — things like screening canals, or changing seasonal irrigation schedules, or leaving sensitive land fallow. It has helped immensely, particularly the work rice farmers did to aid the threatened spring-run salmon on Butte Creek.

The delta smelt have been listed as a threatened species since 1993. It’s not like the people complaining about the decision couldn’t see it coming. They just didn’t want to admit that they had to do their part to help a failing ecosystem.

It’s a lot easier to argue about water than it is to fix bad decisions, apparently.