This plan threatens an already fragile species, before the announcement, biologist Peter Moyle said that “[t]he probability of the delta smelt surviving the next 3 years is relatively low.” Trump’s decision diminishes those odds even further, leading to a drier delta and a harsher habitat, in which the delta smelt will struggle to survive. Removing the delta smelt would be like pulling the ghost from “Macbeth.” Forever. Without the native fish and other species that populate the delta, it won’t work either. Trump’s actions speak mainly about allegiance to big businesses, not concerns about how to best administer resources on a state level. Then maybe the striped bass and the Sacramento splittail. If we don’t take these steps, and if we let the delta smelt go down, the longfin smelt, the next most endangered species in the delta, will follow. By 2009, less than 100,000 returned. The fight here is not just about saving the delta smelt. A slightly closer look at the delta smelt shows us a third reason to rescue the fish from oblivion -- it’s actually pretty impressive. And the pattern will only continue in the wake of Trump’s recent decision. Trump’s actions contribute to a pattern of unwillingness to compromise on similar issues. Frankly, on first glance, the fish just isn’t much to look at either. The fish and wildlife agencies recognized that when they called for more water, and we have joined in that call with our request to the water board. President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden faced off in Cleveland in their first presidential debate. The judge’s reason: to save a French-fry-sized fish called the delta smelt. An identical sampling a month later found 143. Once superabundant, Chinese fishermen used to harvest the fish by net, but the little thing, a weak swimmer, wouldn’t put up any fight at the end of a line. We sure hope so. Privacy Disclaimer: After submitting content for publication the New University, in print or online, contributors relinquish the right to remove or alter contributions as they appear in publication. Efforts to save the Delta smelt, which lives only in the wetlands stretching north of San Francisco, have been described as a humans versus fish battle. But that decline turned into a nose-dive a couple of years ago because of increased water diversions from the delta. In the case of the delta, we’re talking about a once-magnificent place that is in serious trouble. Though added constraints on farmers may cause unrest, more efficient water usage can ultimately benefit the entire state for decades to come. Like the much vilified spotted owl, the smelt is a measure of how close we are to extinction of an entire ecosystem. California is a thirsty state. She can be reached at enander1@uci.edu. And it’s a law that will be especially important in California and beyond as climate change, human population growth, habitat conversion and invasive species increasingly degrade the natural world. Though small, the delta smelt represent the fragility of habitats that brush up against urbanity—habitats that ought to be protected by our laws, even if that means finding creative ways to support modern agriculture. In a March 2012 trawl survey, wildlife officials found 296 fish. Many other fish are in rapid decline too, victims of pollution, overfishing and habitat destruction as big portions of the delta were diked and drained for agriculture, and the natural exchange of fresh and salt water was altered by the huge, sucking pumps that send water south. Alternatives to blatant partisan decision making may give hope to the delta smelt. The unassuming delta smelt, a silvery fish measuring five to seven centimeters long, has become the center of the debate over California’s water usage. These methods better distribute the water available since they make the most of California’s limited resources without sacrificing the well-being of people or habitats. If we drive it from existence, we will have obliterated an entire world, willingly, in order for a while longer to grow cotton, rice and alfalfa in the desert, to keep our swimming pools topped off and open, to keep the price of water cheap. President Donald Trump brought the delta smelt back into headlines when he announced on Oct. 22 that he planned to weaken protections of the delta smelt to further increase farmers’ access to the delta water. Protections placed on the fish have limited farmers’ access to the delta water, creating controversy and concern, with the agriculture community claims growing food ought to take precedence over protecting a species of fish while environmentalists stress the importance of preserving the ecosystem. We can and must save the delta smelt. Nothing else on Earth lives the way the delta smelt does, senses the world the way it does, looks like it, moves like it, fits into an ecosystem the way it does. That common perception brings us to the second reason to save the smelt: The goal of the Endangered Species Act is not just to protect single species but also the ecosystems on which they depend. But obeying even a good law may seem unjustified when it comes time to make sacrifices for a ghostlike fish that conveys no clear benefits to mankind. You’d still have a play, but it wouldn’t work. While most fish are hard-wired either for salt or fresh water, the delta smelt tolerates both, a talent that allows it to exploit the brackish zone where the waters meet. Reducing the amount of water sucked from the delta, increasing the release of fresh water upriver and controlling pollutants would help save the delta smelt and help protect spring- and winter-run Chinook, striped bass, steelhead trout, green sturgeon and the entire delta ecosystem. The species populates the San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay in Northern California. When the Spanish arrived centuries ago, it was teeming with fish, crawling with bears and beavers, its skies periodically darkened with migrating birds. The delta smelt is what Peter Moyle, a fisheries biologist at UC Davis, calls an indicator species: Its condition reflects the overall health of an ecosystem.