EDITORIAL : TAXPAYERS BEWARE LISTING OF STEELHEAD AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES MIGHT SERIOUSLY IMPACT STATE'S WATER SUPPLIES.

REMEMBER what happened on Feb. 24, 1993, when Gov. Pete Wilson announced that the big drought was over?

The massive pumps in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta serving the California Water Project were shut down. It seems that some smolt - the offspring of rare winter-run salmon - were spotted near the pumps' intake. Pumping was halted to spare the fish, notwithstanding all the demands for more water.

That incident from the past became relevant to the future last Tuesday when the National Marine Fisheries Service announced that it is proposing to add, at a later date, the West Coast steelhead to the list of endangered species, since they have declined to low levels from Southern California to the Canadian border.

The decline of the steelhead can be attributed, to a great extent, to the damming of streams and rivers to provide water for cities and farms throughout the state. But the Endangered Species Act is friendlier to fish than it is to the millions of people who rely on those dams. Californians therefore have a right to be concerned whether the listing of the steelhead might pose a threat to their water supplies.

The fisheries service said that it will hold hearings throughout the region to obtain comments on the steelhead proposal. It added that a final decision on whether the steelhead requires protection under the Endangered Species Act will be based on information gathered at those meetings, new scientific data and an evaluation of conservation measures to restore the steelhead population.

The fisheries service clearly intended to show that it plans to be reasonable. But as often is the case under the Endangered Species Act, the government is being driven by forces beyond its control.

Federal officials acknowledged that their announcement was made to comply with a federal court order to make a decision on the steelhead, as well as cutthroat trout in Oregon's Umpqua River. So, once again the shots on a major public-policy question are being called by environmental activists and their lawyers, rather than public agencies responsible to the people and their elected representatives.

For example, public officials might decide that it makes sense to attempt to restore steelhead runs in some areas - but not make heroic efforts to bring them back in places such as Malibu Creek, where their natural habitat has been altered enormously.

However, the private enforcers of the Endangered Species Act tend to be addicted to litigation and extreme solutions. Therefore, no one should be surprised if they continue to use the court in an effort to have everything their own way, regardless of how much this costs the economy and the taxpayers.