Analyzing Context

Since I've established my audience, I'm going to explore the context of the issue in order to fully understand the rhetorical situation of my issue.  My issue is very narrow, focusing on the effectiveness of Tucson's drought preparedness, and so the perspectives related are valid, but not widely held by most people, since this issue doesn't affect the majority of the population.  Here is a link to my annotated bibliography, so you can get a better idea of the issue I'm addressing.

Georgemakar. "Green Earth Moon." 4/5/15 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The different perspectives involved in this issue come from the different people that are involved.  There is the political sector which must write the rules of how to handle drought, and how to interpret and work with the water laws that apply to Tucson and Arizona.  The political sphere must consider what is feasible and economically reasonable.  There are also those who are concerned with the future of Tucson's water resources, and want to see a more comprehensive drought plan written to ensure that we are prepared for the future, and not just what will happen in the next few decades.

The political sphere has different priorities than those concerned about environmental issues.  There are many different issues in Tucson these leaders must deal with, and so they are less inclined to spend as much time or thought writing a suitable drought plan.  They most likely believe that the current plan is sufficient; it at least meets the requirements that declared Tucson must have a drought plan.  People concerned about environmental issues certainly want to push the issue of water resources towards the top of the priority list, and believe that what is currently in place is inadequate.  These people are more inclined to think long term about the issue, since they don't have all the other concerns not related to the environment that the local political leaders have.

Between both groups however, there is some common ground.  Both groups acknowledge that drought is an issue that needs to be addressed.  The extent to which it needs to be addressed is where they differ.  Both groups are concerned with issues larger than themselves; the political sphere needs to serve its constituents, and the environmental sector is concerned with how humans are impacting the environment.  These groups also both need each other to work together and address the issue.  Government involvement is one of the best ways to draw attention to our nation's water shortage.  And the government needs the support of scientists to understand what's threatening in our future and what we can do about it.

Again, most of the ideological differences come down to priorities.  While there are some politicians that fundamentally  don't believe in climate change, or refuse to do anything about the issue, the local leaders of Tucson aren't like that.  They realize it's an issue that will affect the people the serve, so they want to address it.  However, there is some disconnect between how informed these leaders might be about the sustainability (or lack thereof) of Tucson's water practices.

The political sphere in Tucson hasn't asked their constituents to do anything yet about reducing water consumption, because there hasn't been an official drought declared in Tucson.  In California, new regulations have been put in place to conserve how much water is used through things like irrigation (residents are only allowed to water their lawns/wash their cars on certain days of the week).  This is because there has been a declared drought in CA.  Until that happens in Tucson, there won't be any regulations.  As for environmentalists, they urge supporters to do anything from something as simple as turning off the water when they brush their teeth, to anything that requires much more effort, such as rainwater harvesting or installing composting toilets.

Obviously I share an environment-centered perspective, because I'm very concerned about resource management (hence my major). I believe that people should be more aware of all the water they consume, and that America is consuming water faster than the natural water cycle.  I think it should be part of one's character to care about the future of the environment; the idea that Americans have the right to consume endlessly -- whether that be food, water, oil, or anything else -- is a self-righteous and privileged attitude that we need to put a stop to.

Of course, it doesn't mean that those who don't put saving the environment as their top priority are bad people.  It's important for me to understand the opposing view, because I need to understand the situation fully before I cast judgement.  However, will be fatal if we continue to put off our problems as the Colorado River shrinks, and we begin to receive significantly less water.  The ultimate danger is procrastination: we shouldn't deceive ourselves and pretend we have years and years before we must deal with these issues.  We must begin understanding the gravity of the situation today.


REFLECTION

I looked at Olivia and Grace's posts, and I noticed that all of us identified two main perspectives, which are basically pro and con.  That got me wondering if we're leaving out a group that maybe isn't as dominant but still contributes to the issue.  I realized that in terms of the issue I'm dealing with, there is also the group of citizens of Tucson who really aren't interested in the drought plan at all, probably mostly because it isn't something that's crossed their minds.  I think they could also be hindering change, simply by ignorance.  Since many people might not recognize this issue as significant, it makes the issue seem less legitimate.  However, through my argument I need to prove that the general population of Tucson needs to care about this issue too, because we all will have to live with the consequences.