In an apparent jab at California politics, President Donald Trump’s executive order issued on Monday instructed federal agencies to “redirect more water” from various parts of the state rather than focusing on protecting a nearly extinct species of small fish.

Experts argue that California’s water management has been intricate for over forty years and suggest that the president’s directive might seem questionable as he aims to fulfill a long-standing campaign promise.

The executive order, titled “Putting People Over Fish: Stopping Radical Environmentalism to Provide Water to Southern California,” calls for water from Northern California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta—a key water source for the state—to be diverted south. This directive seeks to alter the environmental protections in place for the smelt, a tiny fish that once played a significant role in California’s ecosystem but is now on the brink of extinction, while also critiquing the state’s management of ongoing and devastating wildfires in the greater Los Angeles area.

This order follows Trump’s initial commitment made in 2016 to channel California’s water runoff to assist farmers and agricultural workers in the Central Valley. In 2020, he issued a federal memorandum aimed at rerouting millions of gallons of water, but California Governor Gavin Newsom successfully challenged these efforts in federal court to restrict the flow from the Delta.

Analysts note that Trump’s order is intentionally “vague,” designed to make it seem as though he is acting in the farmers’ interests, particularly since they supported him during the previous election, according to Tom Holyoke, a Political Science Professor at Fresno State University with expertise in water issues in the western United States.

“It’s not a practical solution; it’s more of a statement to his supporters,” Holyoke remarked, emphasizing that Los Angeles primarily relies on water from sources like the Los Angeles River, Owens Valley, and the Colorado River. “This directive aims to create a fix when there may not even be a feasible one. Simply increasing water flow south of the Delta is unlikely to resolve Los Angeles’s water supply concerns.”

“Water management in the West is complicated, and it’s particularly complex in California,” Holyoke elaborated.

Scientists believe that extracting water from the Delta has significantly contributed to the decline of the smelt, according to Holyoke.

He noted that since the Delta smelt serves as a food source for larger fish like salmon and sea bass, the Endangered Species Act mandates that the government take every possible measure to prevent any endangered species from becoming extinct. Consequently, for approximately two decades, less water has been diverted from the Delta to try to protect the smelt.

“The act doesn’t consider the utility of a species to people; it simply requires that endangered species be preserved,” Holyoke stated, citing the example of logging being halted in Oregon to protect the Spotted Owl.

Feud Heightened by Wildfires

The ongoing conflict between Trump and Newsom has intensified in the wake of the recent deadly wildfires. Last week, Trump expressed his frustration with Newsom on Truth Social, demanding, “RELEASE THE WATER FROM UP NORTH. MILLIONS OF GALLONS A DAY. WHAT’S TAKING YOU SO LONG.”

In another post, he criticized Newsom, often referring to him as “Newscum.”

“Governor Gavin Newscum declined to sign the water restoration declaration, which would have allowed millions of gallons of water from excess rain and snowmelt in the North to flow daily into various parts of California, including areas currently facing devastating wildfires,” Trump stated. “He chose to protect an essentially worthless fish called a smelt while neglecting the needs of Californians.”

“Now people are paying the ultimate price,” Trump added, vowing to demand that the “incompetent governor” ensures “clean, fresh water FLOWS INTO CALIFORNIA!”

In response, Newsom’s office refuted Trump’s claims on X, stating, “There is no such document as the water restoration declaration – that is pure fiction.”

Trump’s executive order serves to highlight what he sees as the dysfunction in California politics, particularly surrounding water issues—a debate that goes back to Ronald Reagan’s time as governor before he assumed the presidency, according to Brian Sobel, a political analyst from the San Francisco Bay Area.

“It’s Trump’s way of commenting on environmental regulations going too far,” Sobel observed. “The point about the smelt is a strong illustration.”

In September, Trump indicated that if he were re-elected, he would cut wildfire funding for California unless Newsom agreed to modify state and federal policies protecting the smelt and allowed more water to be diverted during wildfires in Southern California.

“If he doesn’t sign those papers, we won’t give him money to address his fires. And if we don’t provide funding for fire efforts, that will create significant issues for him,” Trump asserted, labeling Newsom a poor governor.

Holyoke and Sobel both speculate about what Trump might say to Newsom during the president’s planned visit to assess the wildfire damage in Southern California later this week.

“Trump might very well use the executive order as a discussion point,” Holyoke remarked. “I can’t imagine he wouldn’t.”