As is the case with most things, there is some truth and lots of examples to both sides.
One example regarding the little fishes is the San Joaquin River, which was dammed in the 1940s for human use to the point that it ran dry before meeting the ocean. After 20 years of environmental lawsuit, it was determined in the 2000s that the river must be restored for salmon run that hasn't existed in 70 years.
Similarly, % of water from the Sacramento river delta exported have significantly decreased since the 90s over concern for the delta smelt.
I am not sure people realize just how much the Central Valley has been changed by us (humans) to make it the agriculture center it is. Driving through or even being there it is easy to forget the south end used to be a series of huge shallow lakes. Crossing below the Friant canal it is clear how little water is allowed to flow down the river.
Yeah, it is really fascinating. People also generally forget the Role dams play in flood mitigation in California. Many parts of California are extremely prone to flooding and these events are also expected to increase with climate change. Has recently as the 1950s huge swaths of the Central Valley flooded putting some towns 20 ft underwater. The impacts would be much greater now with increased population density
My main point was not to debate the the pros and cons of the fishery versus agriculture vs environmental protection, but to point out that there is some basis in reality to these claims, even if people disagree on them.
As an aside, the delta smelt are basically extinct, so they aren't contributing much towards our current salmon consumption. Thats not to say they can't someday recover and lead to the type of consumer utility you are talking about.
Not really. Both examples came down to environmental regulation and the Endangered Species Act superceding water rights in the courts. Commercial and recreational fishing didn't really have anything to do with it
Sure, in the sense that some amount of fish we just let die in the ocean. We're using that freshwater to ensure there is a path from the ocean. I'm as much against enviro-loons as much as anyone (especially the bullshitters like the Burning Man guys or the ones against Diablo Canyon), but drying up the river flow is definitely risky to us in an irrecoverable way, so it makes sense to not go full bore on it.
One example regarding the little fishes is the San Joaquin River, which was dammed in the 1940s for human use to the point that it ran dry before meeting the ocean. After 20 years of environmental lawsuit, it was determined in the 2000s that the river must be restored for salmon run that hasn't existed in 70 years.
Similarly, % of water from the Sacramento river delta exported have significantly decreased since the 90s over concern for the delta smelt.