Sydnee Rudolph

6/4/15
M/W 3-5pm

When the Rivers Run Dry

For many years leading up to our present day, California has been experiencing shorter
rain seasons and longer dry spells. May showers are becoming a thing of the past, and this
certainly has an effect on the amount of May flowers Californians are receiving. The biggest
question being whispered amongst the population is How much? How much water can be
wasted before the state truly runs dry? How much time will pass before citizens begin caring
about water conservation? How long before its too late? The answers to these questions vary
depending on who is answering them, but currently all sources have come to agree on one
statement; If California does not take definitive action soon, they will deplete their one natural
resource that is essential to human survival, which is their water. Researching the countless
opinions on this crucial topic, one can tailor their search to range from liberal to conservative,
and witness various approaches to how this dire situation should be dealt with. To find three
online sources throughout the spectrum of opinions, I typed California Drought Responses into
the search engine where one can view the differences in tactics between liberals and
conservatives. Ultimately, the liberal point of view provides the most valuable observations and
progressive solutions to this statewide issue.
One major convention of these online news websites is the amount and quality of data
that they provide. For our Liberal voice, we will observe an article titled When Our Responses
to Drought Make Things Worse by The Huffington Post, a well-known strongly-liberal news
source. As is apparent when reading the title of this article, the liberal stance on this matter is that

the ways in which California is currently attempting to improve the drought situation are actually
worsening it. The first set of data proving their point is a set of bulleted facts, such as this:
During the drought, California's hydropower was roughly halved. This lost hydropower was
largely replaced with the purchase and combustion of additional natural gas. (Springer, Pacific
Institute, Sustainability Science) The bullets are closely followed by a bar graph with scientific
evidence and citations to provide validity to their words. To compare an opposite political
viewpoint, well take a look at an article, from the well-known conservative online news source
Fox News, titled Californias Delta Water Mysteriously Missing amid Severe Drought. This
article is severely lacking data in comparison to its liberal counterpart. Rather than focusing on a
solution, this piece has geared what little data it provides toward finding someone to blame, in
this case being the Delta Farmers. Some 450 farmers who hold 1,061 water rights in the Delta
and the Sacramento and San Joaquin river watersheds were told to report their water
diversions(Katherine Mrowka, State Water Board Enforcement Manager). Data such as this is
biased towards the opinion that delta farmers are taking more water than their fair share and are
therefore to blame for others lacking. Delving into water rights and who-owns-what discussions
only further postpones finding a sustainable solution, such as those suggested by The Huffington
Post.
Considering that the two opinions observed above are usually opposing, we will also hear
from a neutral news source to see if the liberals truly have evaluated the situation in its entirety.
This news source is the most mainstream and average of the three sources we have discussed.
The article, from our source named PRI, is titled California Faces the Worst Water emergency
Since the Dust Bowl, and It Needs Solutions Fast. Comparing the data of this article to that of
our liberal source, it is clear that the latter still provides the most valuable information to

Californians. The data within PRIs article is scattered randomly throughout the paragraphs, is
not cited, and is not backed up by any visuals or sources. This leaves the readers with doubt in
their minds as to the validity of the statements made and therefore weakens the argument of the
article. Overall, the strength of the Huffington Posts data supported by its sources and visuals is
most valuable to any reader looking to evaluate the situation accurately and move towards a
solution.
On that same note, another convention of these articles is the provision of a solution, or
solutions, to the drought. Beginning with Fox Newss article, it was previously mentioned that
their data was focused on the actions of a single group in relation to the missing water. This
same pattern remains when they discuss the topic of solutions. Referring multiple times to the
farmers and their use of water from both the Delta and the ground, the conservative opinion
declares that if everyone simply took the water they owned rights to, then no one would go
without and the problem would essentially fix itself. Here the problem lies within the narrow
view of the bigger issue at hand. This lack of perspective emphasizes the effectiveness of the
Huffington Post and its multiple ideas for solutions. Not only does this liberal article recognize
the ineffectiveness of our current attempts at solving the issue, but it also provides insight on
how Californians could approach sustainability from a new angle. Improvements in the
efficiency of water use in the agricultural sector can minimize reliance on the existing supplies
and reduce unnecessary water use (The Huffington Post). This specific solution provides an
attainable goal without the accusatory tone used in the conservative article. The Huffington
Posts solutions are all written similarly in structure to this one and gives all Californians a way
that they can do their part. The neutral news source, PRI, has a similar goal within its article but
its execution is much vaguer in comparison. The lack of a clear solution can be best exhibited by

this quote from the article: "There's a lot of stuff that can be done and is being done,"(Keith
Schneider, Senior Editor of Circle of Blue). This quote provides zero information as to what
can or is being done, but attempts to reassure the reader that there is in fact some solution
being put into place. Once again, The Huffington Posts extensive provision of a wide range of
information and clear, concise language used when describing their solutions puts them at a
higher level of efficiency than the other two articles.
The last and most central convention to any article that we will focus on is the tailoring of
each article to their specific audience. Who is the article speaking to, why do they care, and does
the article effectively demand their attention? All three articles share one similarity within this
convention in that they are all writing to citizens of California. Where they begin to branch off
from each other is the political affiliations of each group they are speaking to. Keith Schneider, a
contributor to PRIs article, tailors his input toward the middle-ground point of view which
focuses on a big-picture solution for water conservation. He and the authors of the article
invoke broad, general concerns and appeal to something (their) audience already figures to
care about (Birkenstein & Graff 97). They provide less scientific facts than the others and more
generalized statements, as well as basic facts to appeal to the average and politically-unaffiliated
Californian. The Fox News article, however, has a more definite audience to appeal to. Their
argument is shaped to appeal to those who share the ideas of the Conservative political party.
Considering the fact that the main concern of Conservatives is how issues will affect the
economy, it makes sense that our conservative article would focus on farmers as being the main
cause of the drought. Specifically blaming delta farmers, who have more weight on the economic
side of agriculture, is plausible because the conservative audience wants to know where the

economy is being crippled and how to mend it. Therefore this article sacrifices important factual
information and possible solutions for pleasing its audience.
Finally, the audience which the Huffington Post writes for is interested in the well-being
of the state as a whole, both economically and ecologically. Because of this fact, they have a
wider range of information they must, and do, provide. The authors of the article also deliver a
substantial amount of scientific data, as the liberal audience will want to be able to validate the
information they are receiving. Along with factual statements, their audience requires a concrete
solution, similar to the conservative audience, and so the Huffington Post writes exactly that. The
overall suggestion to Californians from The Huffington Post article is to halt their current shortterm emergency responses, and to progress toward a long-term system of conservation, which
both gives their audience a sustainable solvent to the drought issue as well as promotes a
collective mindset among the readers.
At first glance, all three points of view press the similar idea that if nothing is done
quickly to move toward conserving the water California still has left, it will be too late. They
each aim to convince their audiences of the validity of their argument and the efficiency of their
proposals for resolution. As each article develops, however, the sheer amount of data and
possible solutions provided by the liberal article remains the strongest in both validity and
efficiency. Consistent with ideas from Boyds Murder! (Rhetorically Speaking), the conservative
side carefully chooses which details to include and which to do away with to convince its readers
of its purpose, while the liberals provide scientific facts and observations accompanied by
evidence to back up their claims. The middle-ground article simply constructed its argument to
be easily understandable and relatable to the public. The value of studying genre can be seen here
when observing the differences in these articles that are all concerning the same topic. A reader

without an understanding of the concept of genre might read the three different types of articles
and think they are all relatively similar. They might believe that the only issue here is finding a
solution to our lack of water, and it is, but the bigger question is how will we do this and what
solution is the best solution. Such a reader would not notice the differences in context on all three
arguments across each piece, nor would they pick up on the involvement of different political
stances or economic beliefs involved in the diction and tone of each work. Understanding the
way the conventions of a genre interact allows one to deduce the efficiency of The Huffington
Posts solutions over its two competitors, the value of its cited and extensive information over the
opinions stated within the other articles, and how it provides a deeper understanding of the dire
situation at hand and the necessity and attainability of a quick and effective solution.