House Republicans vote to remove California fish from endangered species list

Los Angeles Times - May 1st, 2025

House Republicans passed a resolution to repeal the endangered status of California's longfin smelt, a move led by Rep. Doug LaMalfa. The resolution passed with a 216-195 vote along party lines and is now headed for the Republican-controlled Senate. LaMalfa argues that the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to list the fish as endangered was unscientific and burdensome to water delivery from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to farmers. In contrast, Democrats, including Rep. Jared Huffman, criticized the resolution, emphasizing that the longfin smelt's population has drastically declined by over 99% since the 1980s and that the agency's decision was based on scientific data and law.

The implications of this resolution are significant, as it challenges the 2024 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act and leverages the 1996 Congressional Review Act to overturn such rules. Environmental groups warn that removing protections could push the longfin smelt towards extinction, affecting other fish populations and regional water quality. This move could set a precedent for Congress to use its authority to strip protections from endangered species, raising concerns among environmentalists about the broader impact on biodiversity and ecosystem management in the San Francisco Bay estuary and beyond.

House Republicans Environmental Policy U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service Congressional Review Act Doug La Malfa Longfin Smelt Endangered Species Act Jared Huffman

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and engaging examination of a contentious legislative action concerning environmental protection and agricultural interests. It effectively captures the political divide and the stakes involved, making it relevant to public discourse. However, the accuracy is somewhat compromised by factual errors, such as the incorrect party affiliation for Rep. LaMalfa, and a lack of verification for certain claims. The balance could be improved by including more diverse perspectives, particularly from scientific and agricultural experts. Despite these shortcomings, the article is clear and accessible, with the potential to influence public opinion and spark meaningful discussion. Overall, it serves as a valuable entry point into a complex and important issue, though it would benefit from greater depth and precision in its reporting.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the House's vote to repeal the endangered status of the longfin smelt, with a 216-195 vote, aligning with other sources. However, the article incorrectly identifies Rep. Doug LaMalfa as a Democrat, which is a factual error since he is a Republican. The claim about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision in 2024 needs verification, as the timeline might be incorrect. Additionally, the article mentions the potential impact on water delivery, which is a contested point requiring further evidence. Overall, while the story presents many accurate details, a few critical errors and unverified claims affect its overall accuracy.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both Republicans and Democrats, highlighting the political divide over the resolution. Rep. LaMalfa's viewpoint is given prominence, reflecting the Republican stance, while Democratic opposition is also noted through Rep. Jared Huffman's comments. However, the article leans slightly towards the environmentalist perspective by quoting an environmental group representative without providing an equivalent counterpoint from agricultural interests. This creates a slight imbalance, as the potential benefits of the resolution for farmers are not fully explored.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow from the House vote to the potential Senate decision. It effectively communicates the main points, such as the political divide and the environmental concerns. The language is straightforward, making the complex issue accessible to a general audience. However, the incorrect identification of Rep. LaMalfa's party affiliation introduces some confusion.

Source quality

The article cites statements from politicians and an environmental group, providing a mix of political and advocacy perspectives. However, it lacks authoritative sources such as scientific experts or legal analysts who could provide more depth on the environmental and legal implications of the resolution. The reliance on political figures might introduce bias, as their statements could reflect partisan interests rather than objective analysis.

Transparency

The article provides some context about the resolution and its implications but lacks transparency regarding the scientific basis for the longfin smelt's endangered status. There is no discussion of the methodology or data used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor is there an exploration of the Congressional Review Act's legal intricacies. This omission limits readers' understanding of the underlying factors influencing the story.