Clean, Affordable Water: A Hope for the Future

“Clean, unpolluted, affordable water. There is nothing more important in the world-but it’s in serious danger” (146). The opening line of Ortega’s, “Water Wars: Bottling Up the World’s Supply of H2O,” expresses his cause with heavily weighted words which strongly convey the message he provides for his readers. He is writing to show the seriousness of the global water crisis we face and the detriment caused by the recent bottled water epidemic. His desire is for each and every reader to be inspired to break from the common perception of bottled water and to not take for granted the clean public water that people in developed countries are fortunate enough to have. Throughout the article Ortega makes clever use of a variety of literary devices to strike fear into his audience so that he may convert them to his cause. He approaches the article with an authoritative tone immediately establishing his credibility. While establishing himself he supplements his article with facts to establish a logical argument.
Ortega takes on a mocking tone in the article that he uses to establish his dominance over the audience and to establish his superior knowledge. He insinuates that the reader is uninformed on the bottled water issue. He mentions that, “As Americans, we are all fortunate enough to live in a country where clean, drinkable water is a reality” (146). The audience would not know the problems facing other countries with their water supply. At the same time, it is assumed that the reader will automatically side with the writer on this issue. In the case of this article, it is likely that the intended reader would immediately agree with the author. This article was originally published in the Seattle Times. Readers of the Seattle Times are generally more liberal than other parts of the country. Liberal audiences usually hold the environment as one of their tenets and would, therefore, welcome the idea of eliminating bottled water if it were the means to reach an end of saving the environment. Ortega also mocks big business throughout his article. “Water corporations exist to make profits-not to preserve water’s quality or affordability” (149). This comment makes it seem like big business has no interest in the health and safety of its products. In fact big business must care a great deal for the health and safety of the consumer. If safety is disregarded, no profit will be made. In general, a liberal audience would also welcome such a disregard for big business and a capitalistic economy. Liberals usually seek greater regulation of industry, a principle which Ortega is banking on.
Early in the article Ortega uses his scientific diction and appeals to logic to continue the feeling of inferiority for the audience and to introduce a fear of the unknown. He states, “One-fifth of the sampled bottled waters contained known neurotoxins and carcinogens such as styrene, toluene and xylene” (146). It is likely that Ortega’s audience is not made up of chemists or scientists. So it if fairly safe to assume that the everyday working people that he is writing to have not been exposed to technical chemical names of plastics. The audience would not really know if these substances were harmful or not if Ortega had not included the words “neurotoxins” and “carcinogens.” Inclusion of these technical terms does establish some credibility to the author. It shows that he is informed on the subject that he is writing about. But more than establishing ethos, these words are meant to scare the audience. Carcinogens carries with it a deeper meaning of fear and the technical jargon only serves to reinforce this fear.
Fear is again introduced in the following paragraph when a rhetorical question is posed to the reader to question the reader’s faith in his own country. “But how can bottled water be contaminated and still be sold in the U.S.” (146)? At first the question seems harmless enough. The government should be able to regulate the water sold in bottles to ensure its safety. Again a loaded word is used in this question. Contaminated carries stronger connotations than other possible word choices such as impure or unclean. This question also implies that the United States of all places should be free from contaminated water. It gives the feeling that one is not safe to have water anywhere without the fear of “contamination.” But according to Ortega this feeling should already be evident.
Ortega makes great use of an analogy in his article to compare the clearness of a plastic water bottle to the clearness he feels that his article should give to the bottled water situation. “Whether in America or less-developed countries, the evidence is as clear as the plastic it’s sold in-bottled water, compared to good tap water, is not worth the costs, whether they be environmental, health related or economic” (147). Comparing the facts of his article to the clarity of a plastic water bottle provides a great image of the way he wants his article seen. It is again assumed that the reader will agree with the author about the bottled water issue. For an individual who disagrees with the evidence, it may not be quite as clear. If I may provide an analogy of my own, “The evidence, to one of a different opinion, may be as impure as the carcinogen filled plastic bottled water is sold in.” Ortega uses his tone to mock the reader. The reader’s ability to analyze the evidence and decide for himself whether tap or bottled water is better for the environment and economy is jeopardized by this analogy. Ortega is stating that the reader need not look further than this article to know the facts about world water issues.
The author uses an allusion to confirm fears of American water privatization. He compares the potential privatization of our water system to the privatization of the French, British and Canadian water systems. Seeking again to strike fear into his readers he mentions the fact that French water rates increased by 150 percent, that Wessex, a British company, has been prosecuted 128 times for various infractions, and that deregulation of water-testing labs in Canada led to disastrous results with seven people dying and hundreds of others getting sick. These facts bring a valid fear of a privatized water system. Each of these countries has government and economic situations similar to the United States. If privatization caused these problems in other wealthy nations it is very appropriate to compare these countries to the problems that would face a privatization of water in the United States.
Ortega closes the article with a powerful metaphor that leaves the reader feeling a poignant description of the fear he seeks to instill. “Taking away your water is the same thing as putting a gun to your head” (150). It seems very appropriate that he would use a metaphor here rather than an analogy. A metaphor carries with it a stronger meaning here. Taking away your water is not simply like putting a gun to your head it is putting a gun to your head. Water is an essential resource that each one of us needs to live. Taking away one’s water would inevitably bring death to that individual. This is not acceptable in any nation. Ortega knows that water is a necessity and that its removal would kill a person, but he uses the metaphor of a gun to the head to possibly show the immediacy of the situation. Essentially he is saying that the threat is real, it is here, and it must be dealt with now.
This article effectively conveys the importance of the bottled water and water privatization issues. Though targeted to a liberal audience that would generally agree with everything Ortega wrote, it would demonstrate to any reader the dangers of bottled water and water privatization. Ortega uses his mocking tone of the audience to express his annoyance of ignorance rather than to insult his reader’s knowledge. Throughout the article he uses fear as his primary motivation for change. He begins with the fear of disease by mentioning the many carcinogens in plastic bottles. The fear perpetuates with the idea that even products sold in the United States could be contaminated and continues through the death of seven Canadians caused by water privatization. Ortega uses powerful analogies, allusions, and metaphors which all directly apply to his audience and bring a sense of familiarity to the issue at hand. He ends by again stating his intent, “Remember that it’s not too late. Clean, affordable water is still a reality in this country. It is our patriotic duty as Americans to ensure that it stays that way” (150). A final call to action seems very appropriate to an audience that has been converted to Ortega’s cause. It does not feel as though he is simply giving the reader a call to action. It feels more like he is reawakening the reader’s patriotic duty.