Wondering why California's water crisis never seems to end? Part of the answer lies with the behavior of individual water agencies.

Instead of devoting their ratepayers' money to projects that might increase water supply or resolve environmental conflicts, these districts spend far too much on campaigns to assign blame or divert attention from their own actions.

Such a set of campaigns is occurring now. Some of the biggest exporters of water from the Delta – the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Contra Costa Water District, the State Water Contractors and others – are targeting Sacramento for contributing to the decline of smelt and other fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

In filings with regulators and in media commentaries, the south-of-Delta water agencies claim that Sacramento's treated wastewater is harming phytoplankton and hurting the ecology and water quality of the Delta.

"Every day, Sacramento's wastewater treatment plant sends 13 tons of ammonia downstream to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, potentially disturbing the Delta's food web in profound and destructive ways," wrote Laura King Moon, assistant general manager for the State Water Contractors, in a recent op-ed for The Bee.

Is Sacramento's ammonia contributing to the Delta's decline? There is cause for concern, as we noted in an editorial in June. Scientists from San Francisco State University have found that high ammonia concentrations reduce production of diatom – a type of phytoplankton – in the San Francisco and Suisun bays, potentially harming fish.

Yet if you were to read statements by the water contractors and some politicians, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, you'd think the case against Sacramento was airtight. It's not. Scientists must still determine if ammonia harms phytoplankton in the Delta in the same way it seems to do in the more salty San Francisco Bay. The impacts of ammonia must also be weighed against other stressors of the ecosystem, including exotic clams, pesticides and water diversions.

In recent months, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board has started to more closely examine these questions, which is appropriate. The Sacramento sanitation district has plans by 2020 to expand its discharge by 40 percent. Before it receives permits to do so, regulators need to understand the consequences.

In this effort, it would be helpful if everyone involved – from water contractors to the Sacramento sanitation district – would help to advance the basic research. Determining if ammonia from Sacramento's treatment plant is actually damaging the estuary would be money well spent, especially since ammonia removal could cost the sanitation district up to $1 billion.

Sadly, instead of taking such a proactive approach, the Sacramento sanitation district is spending its money in more dubious ways. Last month, the district's board – made up of Sacramento County's five supervisors and other elected officials – hired a local public affairs firm to launch a "strategic communications plan" to counter any suggestion that ammonia might pose a threat.

According to a copy of the contract, this strategic plan will cost this public agency and its ratepayers an astounding $532,500 to $630,525.

Such is the nature of water politics. Instead of resolving conflicts and letting science drive policy, water agencies devote enormous sums of public money to litigation, perks, wasteful spending and – above all – spin.