And all the boards did shrink

Whiskey's for drinking; Water's for fighting over ~ Mark Twain

Global environmental discourses are often very broad and overly simplistic for the problems they address.  Many take a singular approach to a problem, vilify some core group, then propose a silver bullet as a solution.  Of course global problems are often influenced by many confounding variables making it difficult to even consider priorities let alone possible solutions.  With the disconnect between global forces and on the ground conditions, one might think that more localized issues might be more successful and may avoid the overly simplistic discourses.   

In the American Southwest one of the biggest localized environmental conflicts is water.  It has been reported throughout the scientific literature that our riparian habitats have been degraded by over 95% in the past century.  Many consider this an environmental crisis, with federal, state, and private individuals all focusing their attention on these fragile systems.  

Unfortunately a large part of the dialog is dominated by a Populist and Neo-Malthusian dichotomy.  The Populists acknowledge that there is a problem, but that the majority of the problem was caused by unsustainable land use at the end of the 1800's and early 1900's.  It was during that time when arroyo formations were at their greatest, where grazing numbers were the highest, and when rangeland conditions were at their worst culminating in the dustbowl.   The Neo-Malthusian view typically points to the past as examples of abuse, then associates that with current local resource users.  They maintain that these resource users are at fault for any riparian degradation and that regulations on resource use is the only way to restore these systems.

Of the two discourses the Neo-Malthusian view seems to be winning.  Federal agencies have been told to consider all riparian areas sacred, no matter the size, and executive orders protecting riparian areas have been issued at the state level.  Ideas of 95% riparian degradation leaves a lot to the imagination, and many assume that all dry stream beds were once free flowing perennial rivers.  These views have led to many strict regulations on riparian areas, and the implementation of restoration projects, in an attempt to recreate what is imagined lost.  

In the background of the discourse is the fact that the 95% riparian degradation statistic is most likely a gross exaggeration.  This stat can be found from many sources, but they all trace back to a single report on a rather unique stretch of the lower Colorado river.  There is no doubt that riparian areas have had some degradation, but it is likely that the discourse, regulations, and restoration are working towards something that has never existed.