With 6 Left, Controversial Fish Species Faces Extinction

Are we about to witness the extinction of the controversial delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)? The most recent survey for the tiny fish, over which decades of battles over water rights have been fought, counted just four females and two males.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Are we about to witness the extinction of the controversial delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)? The most recent survey for the tiny fish, over which decades of battles over water rights have been fought, counted just four females and two males.

The announcement came just days after a NASA scientist warned that drought-stricken California only has one year of water left.

Delta smelt used be common throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary until its water was diverted to supply the 25 million people and farmers who live in the area. Invasive species and changes in water salinity and clarity also played a role in the smelt’s decline. They were protected under the Endangered Species Act in 1993 and a recovery plan was established in 1996. The average population between 2000 and 2006 was 353 fish. That population crashed to just 25 fish the following year. The species has never recovered.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Despite this extremely low population, the delta smelt has never been listed as anything more severe than “threatened” on the endangered species list. Numerous petitions and lawsuits have tried to change that, to no avail.

Dozens of lawsuits have also tried to remove water usage restrictions put in place to protect the smelt. Most recently, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case where farmers sought to overturn some of those water restrictions.

Delta smelts have a one-year lifespan and a very low reproductive rate, so unless these six fish get pretty darn busy pretty darned quickly, the future does not look bright for the species.

Photo: Peter Johnson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

John R. Platt is the editor of The Revelator. An award-winning environmental journalist, his work has appeared in Scientific American, Audubon, Motherboard, and numerous other magazines and publications. His "Extinction Countdown" column has run continuously since 2004 and has covered news and science related to more than 1,000 endangered species. John lives on the outskirts of Portland, Ore., where he finds himself surrounded by animals and cartoonists.

More by John R. Platt

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe