Analyzing Message in "'It's not just a 'California drought'"

Understanding the message an article of piece of rhetoric is the first step to analyzing the rhetorical strategies and devices.  Here, I examine the underlying messages in the article "It's not just a 'California drought'" by Cynthia Barnett.  Most of the messages are fairly straightforward.  I refer to Student's Guide examples of messages and purposes.

Peripitus. "Drought Swimming Hole." 4/2008 via Wikimedia Commons.
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about a topic that is often misunderstood (drought), and persuade the audience of something (the message of the headline).  To build her argument, Barnett first must prove that drought is something the American public should be concerned about, so she must give the reader correct information about droughts, and show their preconceived ideas were inaccurate.  The first part of the article serves to contextualize the issue by explaining the current state of California, and the Great Basin states in the west.

Barnett also dismantles the misconception that wetter eastern states do not have water shortage problems.  She argues that the issue of overuse cannot simply be moved to an area with more water, because we will simply drain out the reservoirs there, as well.  Easter states must also manage their resources responsibly.  Moving agriculture towards the east will only prolong the issue, and won't create a sustainable solution.  Hence, she proves that drought is an issue the entire US must deal with, not just California, as the headline suggests.

Barnett also seeks to persuade her readers to take a stance on an objective issue, wanting her audience to agree that something must be done about the national water shortage issue.  "Dangerous" is an objective term, and different people will view different things as dangerous.  Barnett explains the consequences of drought, coming to the conclusion that drought is dangerous, and wants to persuade her audience to agree.  She also seeks to convince the reader water shortage is a nationwide issue, and gives her argument in the context of agriculture practices in the east and western states.

However, she doesn't give a lot of solutions about what could be done to reduce water consumption, except a brief mentioning of imposing new water regulations.  This is why although she could go further and advocate change, I would say she isn't in this article.  She doesn't seem to invest a lot of urgency in advocating for changing water laws or agricultural practices.  However, Barnett does more than simply reflect in her article.  She clearly wants to persuade her readers of her beliefs, not simply sit and postulate.