Getting Confidence
In September 2006, when I immigrated to the US, I knew just a few simple phrases in English and could write very little. For a long time I avoided meeting people because I couldn’t have even a simple conversation with them. And three years later, I’m in the English-1010 class, and am writing a self-reflective essay.
On the first day of the class, I was a little uncomfortable among my native English-speaking classmates. Would I be up to the task? But after our professor introduced himself and announced our course outline, I felt that I could do it--step by step, and with a lot of hard work.
Our first assignment, a reflective memoir, was a very interesting project. First, I had just a general idea about the topic, but didn’t have any clue how to write that essay. But in class, we learned how to ask the right questions and answer them, how to use free-writing to pick vivid details and develop them, how to organize effective writing and consider the audience, how to revise our drafts, etc. Using my new knowledge, I came from the point of “I don’t even know where to start” to the final product. In course of the project, I got a lot of help from different people—my husband, my peers, my tutors in the ESL lab and the Writing Center, and, of course, from my instructor. Their constructive feedback helped me to make my final paper strong and interesting.
All the writing methods I learned during my first assignment were also helpful for my next papers. But there were some new challenges for me. For example, in the film review assignment, the most difficult part was the critical analysis where I–not an expert in cinematography--had to evaluate the film director’s and actors’ work. Eventually, after participating in the class work and reading many published film reviews, I began to understand the main points of critical analysis.
The main difficulties in the third assignment, rhetorical analysis, were recognizing the rhetorical techniques the two writers I chose to review used, and justifying my choice of the most successful rhetoric. Also, my instructor’s audio feedback on this assignment turned out to be a challenge because I couldn’t understand some words in his message—so again I needed help from others. Overall, what I’d learned from this assignment is that rhetoric is a very important writing tool—it can serve to reinforce sound logic, but can also sometimes conceal the author's biases, preferences and subjectivity.
The last assignment was even more challenging because it was a group project. My additional difficulty was the necessity to communicate with the members of my team as we progressed towards our goal. Yet soon I began to see that in some respects I was very helpful to our joint efforts. Group work is complicated, especially at the beginning--people are all different, they don't know each other, and often have very different ideas. The ultimate group success depends on how well all members can communicate and participate. At first, our group couldn’t decide on a topic narrow enough for this assignment. Our next problem was too many sources and too much information to go through. How to choose what would best support our thesis? We had to apply the knowledge we’d acquired in the class—we examined our assignment, stated the problem we wanted to discuss, made an outline, used brainstorming and free-writing, and then picked the most interesting ideas, details and examples. To make our writing effective and reach our goal in persuading readers to act, we applied rhetoric—ethos (we tried to be objective and used reliable sources, statistics, and facts), pathos (we appealed to the readers’ sense of civic responsibility), and logos (by using vivid examples, statistics, and logical reasoning). What I liked most in the group work was the democratic nature of the decisions we made--we collectively discussed all the ideas and decided on the best to go into our paper. We all thought and read critically which helped our work. As always, peer review and our instructor’s feedback were very helpful—based on them, we revised our writing and fixed the mistakes.
The class is almost finished, and looking back, I can say that it was a very good one for me. I’ve learned many things that I’d never thought about. Critical reading, summarizing, analysis, evaluation, rhetoric—they all help us to effectively express our own thoughts and to understand the writing of others. By learning these essentials, I continue to build a strong English language base for my new future and to expand my own world. Everything I’ve learned during this semester will provide me with more confidence in my future academic activities and life in the new culture in general. This class has helped me to take a few important steps towards my goals, but I still have a lot of work ahead of me.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
My assignment # 4 (When Faucets Don’t Flow)
English 1010
August 6, 2009
When Faucets Don’t Flow
Have you ever had plumbing work done in your home? You may have been through the unfortunate situation of not being able to get a glass of water, flush the toilet, or take a shower because your water is turned off. Sure it may have been for only an hour or two, but what if the water is shut off permanently? We are so accustomed to having water on demand; it heeds our call. Just a turn of the valve and it is there, the fuel of our lives. Without it we would die. But are we sure it will be available the next time we need it?
Americans have taken water for granted. We often forget that there are places in the world, such as villages in Africa, where people have to trek several miles a day to pail water out of a stream. We don’t see their blistered feet; we have amusement parks and swimming pools with millions of gallons of water that we frolic in, and if some water gets into our mouth, we spit it out with disgust. Fortunately, we live in a developed country that has no water shortage problem. Or does it? The Western part of the US, and Utah in particular, do in fact have a serious water shortage problem. “If Utah’s municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands increase at the same rate as its population growth, the state is headed for trouble.” (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 1). Even though Utahns have felt this problem at certain times in the past, it may be a bigger problem in the future.
When our forefathers first arrived in Utah they had nothing to greet them but the dry dirt and sagebrush. With blood, sweat and tears they managed to take what little water was available to
sustain them in their new home. Today Utah is a state with a highly developed water supply infrastructure, but we still live in a desert zone. Utah is the second driest state in the US (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1). Our annual precipitation is only 13 inches (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 1). The western United States receives less precipitation than the rest of the nation. “Water is the life-blood of Utah’s environment. From lush mountain meadows to harsh desert valleys, water holds everything together—making the land inhabitable by people and wildlife.” (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 2). If the forecast of global warming is correct, we will likely get even less precipitation.
Another factor contributing to the water shortage problem is our ever-growing population. “From 1990 to 2000, Utah’s population increased by more than 510,000 people to over 2.2 million,” and it is expected to more then double to nearly 5 million during the next four decades (State of Utah. Division of Water resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 1). According to the State Water Plan, we will need an additional 800,000 acre-feet of water supply, and half of this amount supposed to be conserved by the municipal sector (Hooton, par.2).
It is not just the population growth that threatens our future water supply, but the fact that Utahns tend to over consume water now. Thus, if nothing changes, an increased water demand will make the Utah’s water problem worse in the future. According to Utah officials, the state’s residents use about293 gallons of water per person per day (gpcd) compared to 245 gpcd used by the residents of the other Rocky Mountain States (State of Utah. Division of Water resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 1). Some experts say the annual amount of water over-consumption is roughly equal to half of the capacity of Jordanelle Reservoir (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1).
So the problem we are facing is very serious. If we don’t conserve water now, in the near future we will have to invest significant capital in water development projects—dams, reservoirs, pipelines, and such. Even worse, we may not even have enough water to satisfy our future needs under any realistic scenario. “… saving water [now] could prevent a jolt to the regional economy. If drought strikes and the lack of water becomes acute, that will cost the state jobs, and ultimately hit all Utahns’ pocketbooks.” (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1).
The State of Utah has begun addressing the water shortage problem since the early 90s. The 2003 Utah Water State Plan adopted a 25 percent reduction in the residential water use by 2050, and the good news is that we can easily reach this goal without a major investment. The plan includes a set of recommendations to consumers on how to water lawns properly, use water-wise plants and zero-landscaping. It has information on how to apply for the free Water Check Program and rebates. Also included in the plan are educational programs about water conservation for children and adults. (State of Utah. Division of Water resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 2-17). This plan is only as good as the people participating.
Public places are making some progress in saving water. Have you ever walked into a public bathroom and someone has left the faucet leaking, or maybe even running full blast? Many public bathrooms are eliminating this problem by adding motion sensor activated low flow faucets. When the user walks away the water simply shuts off. Not only do motion sensor fixtures prevent faucets from not being shut off properly, but they also have the added bonus of eliminating the spread of germs. However, many businesses feel that changing their faucets will be too expensive. Some people are afraid that water conservation will require significant changes in their lifestyles, but it is not true. We can start conserving water by taking care of the simplest things in our houses. For example, we don’t pay much attention to a dripping faucet. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a scientific organization whose goal is to help minimize our wasted resources, a faucet that drips every second wastes up to five gallons a day (1). In the metropolitan Salt Lake area, we have roughly 300,000 households, and over a million faucets total at the very least. If even one in ten faucets leaks, we have 500,000 gallons of wasted water in a single day. By the way, do you have any leaking faucets in your house?
There are many simple everyday tasks that we do without paying much attention to how we use water, such as tooth brushing, dish washing, doing laundry. With a little thought and effort we can conserve water doing every one of them. The Utah Division of Water Resources published the following water-saving tips:
· Perform an annual maintenance check on your evaporative (swamp) cooler. Check for and fix any leaks you find.
· Wash only full loads in your washing machine, or adjust the water level to reflect the size of the load.
· Pay attention to your water bill and become familiar with your water meter—use them to track your water use and detect leaks.
· Purchase appliances that offer water- and energy-efficient cycle options.
· Fix leaky plumbing fixtures, faucets and appliances in the house.
· Show children how to turn off the faucets completely after each use.
· Locate your master water shut-off valve so that water can be saved if a pipe bursts.
· Install aerators on every faucet. This could save you as much as 1 gallon every minute you use them.
· Be aware! Listen for drips and leaks around the house. (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 1). These tips alone will not solve the problem, but used in conjunction with our proposed solutions they will get us closer to solving the problem.
So far we talked about the water usage problem inside our houses, but 67 percent of the household water usage in Utah goes towards lawn watering (Figure 2). Sadly, “Utahns use more water than they need” (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan). We often see sprinklers watering sidewalks and driveways instead of lawns, so it is obvious that just by simply adjusting sprinklers we can save water and money.
To learn about the work being done by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District towards water conservation, we interviewed its representative Kris Sagers. He started by first formulating the problem as follows. “Even though we have low precipitation in Utah, the typical homeowner on average uses about 50” of water to water their yard. The average lawn (Kentucky Bluegrass) requires anywhere from 25-35” of water to maintain. This is definitely the place to start saving.” Sagers then suggested limiting grass to the areas that are flat and primarily used for recreational purposes. Do watering late at night or early in the morning so that the water has time to get down into the root system to feed the lawn. Also make sure that your sprinkler system is getting good coverage, and if needed, space the heads closer together to fix any dry spots. Altering watering patterns to the particular season will help as well--shorter times in the spring and fall, and longer in the hot summer months.
Sagers also suggested using water-wise plants to cut water usage. Utah’s native grasses such as Blue Grama and Buffalo grass require significantly less water—only 0.5” once every 12-14 days. Mulches, rocks, and other hardscapes are also good choices to use instead of grass in places like the mow strips and any areas of the yard that have severe slopes, that require huge amounts of water to keep green. Sagers and his associates work with contractors, nurseries, and cities to promote the advantages of water-tolerant landscaping in new construction.
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District works in partnership with other water agencies and the State of Utah to promote water conservation. The “slow the flow’ ad campaign is one of the examples. “These ads are currently running on television to make people aware of the need to watch their management of water,” Sagers says. However, these ads only reach a small portion of the target audience.
So here is the situation now. We do have a water crisis, and the people of Utah are aware of it. In a recent Dan Jones & Associates poll, 83% of Utahns felt that it was very important to conserve water, and that 73% strongly supported some sort of ordinance restricting the watering of lawns between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm (Sagers). So, the citizens of Utah are concerned about the water situation, but the question is whether we are doing enough to solve the problem, and the answer is no. When and how do we start to act?
We propose a two-part solution. First, education. We need to start as early as possible by creating programs in school to inform and teach our children of the crisis that we are in. We must raise awareness about the urgency of the situation and the ways they can save water at home. We need more teachers prepared to work with children on water conservation. Students should be provided with more lessons, simple visual aids, and hands-on experiments on the issue in schools.Then, kids and parents, working together can start to see the benefits of these programs in their homes. It should not be a one-time event, but an ongoing process. We also should not forget the well-known fact that many habits we possess are formed in early childhood and are hard to change later in life. That is why all the appeals to conserve water addressed to the adults often fall on deaf ears. To keep adults informed about water saving benefits cities should include pamphlets in the monthly water bill that promote easy water conserving tips.
What adults often understand best are monetary incentives and disincentives. For example, several years ago, Cedar City changed its water billing procedure from a declining rate to a progressive one (Gillespie 2). “For example, residents are charged 48 cents per one thousand gallons of water they use up to 8,000 gallons. From there it jumps to 60 cents per thousand gallons up to 25,000 gallons at which point it tops out at $1.20,” says Cedar City Engineer Kit Wareham, “We’ve seen pretty good declines in water usage.” So part two of our solution is to work out a system of monetary measures that encourages good water usage and discourages waste. It can be modeled on the Cedar City experience or based on current rates used for billing by SLC Department of Public Utilities as shown below (State of Utah. SLC Department of Public Utilities. Billing information 2):
Water Rate Schedule - Rates & Payments
Article IX. Rates And Payments
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS (SINGLE)
Winter Months (November - March,Inclusive) City Water Rates County Water Rates
All water metered 0.88 $1.19
Summer Months (April - October,Inclusive) City Water Rates County Water Rates
Block 1: 1 through 9 hundred cubic feet of water $0.88 $1.19
Block 2: 10 through 29 hundred cubic feet of water $1.35 $1.83
Block 3: Excess over 29 hundred cubic feet of water $1.88 $2.54
These payments don’t take into account any penalty for excessive or wasteful usage of water. The baseline water use for Utah, established in 1995, is 321 gpcd. Now Utahns consume 293 gpcd, and according to the Utah State Plan, it should be 25% less by 2050 (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 2). So, the baseline should be re-established in accordance with the plan, and there should be a penalty in the billing system for those who exceed the limit. For example, if we take for baseline 2900 cubic feet of water, it would be:
Block 1(saving): 100 -- 900 cubic feet of water $0.75
Block 2(under baseline): 1000 – 2900 cubic feet of water $1.35
Block 3(exceed or wasteful): over 2900 cubic feet of water $4.00
These numbers are just examples, but the main principle is that a wasteful use of water should be discouraged by significantly higher billing rates. We think it will be a fair solution because if those who waste our water sources don’t pay now, we will all have to pay in the near future. At the same time, people who save water should be rewarded. Part of the revenue can be directed towards children’s educational programs we proposed earlier; the rest will be used for improvement and development of the water infrastructure.
Even though we still have to develop new sources of water, conservation is the easiest way to have enough water in our future. Starting today, if every household saved as little as five gallons of water a day, what would be the result? The yearly savings would be 1825 gallons per household (an average, 73 additional showers), and 547 million gallons per Salt Lake Valley.
So with regard to the water problem in Utah, the bottom line is this. Nature’s gifts such as snowy winters and rainy springs will not always solve the problem—they are only a short-term relief. Many citizens have already internalized this problem, and have started to act—“the State’s residential water use has dropped by 18 percent since 2000” (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1), but we need the full participation of everyone in this effort. Water is essential to our way of life and to every living breathing plant and animal upon this earth. If we don’t have water, we will not survive. We are the responsible stewards of this precious resource, so let’s begin today to do something about it before it’s too late. The water is running.
August 6, 2009
When Faucets Don’t Flow
Have you ever had plumbing work done in your home? You may have been through the unfortunate situation of not being able to get a glass of water, flush the toilet, or take a shower because your water is turned off. Sure it may have been for only an hour or two, but what if the water is shut off permanently? We are so accustomed to having water on demand; it heeds our call. Just a turn of the valve and it is there, the fuel of our lives. Without it we would die. But are we sure it will be available the next time we need it?
Americans have taken water for granted. We often forget that there are places in the world, such as villages in Africa, where people have to trek several miles a day to pail water out of a stream. We don’t see their blistered feet; we have amusement parks and swimming pools with millions of gallons of water that we frolic in, and if some water gets into our mouth, we spit it out with disgust. Fortunately, we live in a developed country that has no water shortage problem. Or does it? The Western part of the US, and Utah in particular, do in fact have a serious water shortage problem. “If Utah’s municipal and industrial (M&I) water demands increase at the same rate as its population growth, the state is headed for trouble.” (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 1). Even though Utahns have felt this problem at certain times in the past, it may be a bigger problem in the future.
When our forefathers first arrived in Utah they had nothing to greet them but the dry dirt and sagebrush. With blood, sweat and tears they managed to take what little water was available to
sustain them in their new home. Today Utah is a state with a highly developed water supply infrastructure, but we still live in a desert zone. Utah is the second driest state in the US (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1). Our annual precipitation is only 13 inches (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 1). The western United States receives less precipitation than the rest of the nation. “Water is the life-blood of Utah’s environment. From lush mountain meadows to harsh desert valleys, water holds everything together—making the land inhabitable by people and wildlife.” (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 2). If the forecast of global warming is correct, we will likely get even less precipitation.
Another factor contributing to the water shortage problem is our ever-growing population. “From 1990 to 2000, Utah’s population increased by more than 510,000 people to over 2.2 million,” and it is expected to more then double to nearly 5 million during the next four decades (State of Utah. Division of Water resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 1). According to the State Water Plan, we will need an additional 800,000 acre-feet of water supply, and half of this amount supposed to be conserved by the municipal sector (Hooton, par.2).
It is not just the population growth that threatens our future water supply, but the fact that Utahns tend to over consume water now. Thus, if nothing changes, an increased water demand will make the Utah’s water problem worse in the future. According to Utah officials, the state’s residents use about293 gallons of water per person per day (gpcd) compared to 245 gpcd used by the residents of the other Rocky Mountain States (State of Utah. Division of Water resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 1). Some experts say the annual amount of water over-consumption is roughly equal to half of the capacity of Jordanelle Reservoir (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1).
So the problem we are facing is very serious. If we don’t conserve water now, in the near future we will have to invest significant capital in water development projects—dams, reservoirs, pipelines, and such. Even worse, we may not even have enough water to satisfy our future needs under any realistic scenario. “… saving water [now] could prevent a jolt to the regional economy. If drought strikes and the lack of water becomes acute, that will cost the state jobs, and ultimately hit all Utahns’ pocketbooks.” (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1).
The State of Utah has begun addressing the water shortage problem since the early 90s. The 2003 Utah Water State Plan adopted a 25 percent reduction in the residential water use by 2050, and the good news is that we can easily reach this goal without a major investment. The plan includes a set of recommendations to consumers on how to water lawns properly, use water-wise plants and zero-landscaping. It has information on how to apply for the free Water Check Program and rebates. Also included in the plan are educational programs about water conservation for children and adults. (State of Utah. Division of Water resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 2-17). This plan is only as good as the people participating.
Public places are making some progress in saving water. Have you ever walked into a public bathroom and someone has left the faucet leaking, or maybe even running full blast? Many public bathrooms are eliminating this problem by adding motion sensor activated low flow faucets. When the user walks away the water simply shuts off. Not only do motion sensor fixtures prevent faucets from not being shut off properly, but they also have the added bonus of eliminating the spread of germs. However, many businesses feel that changing their faucets will be too expensive. Some people are afraid that water conservation will require significant changes in their lifestyles, but it is not true. We can start conserving water by taking care of the simplest things in our houses. For example, we don’t pay much attention to a dripping faucet. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a scientific organization whose goal is to help minimize our wasted resources, a faucet that drips every second wastes up to five gallons a day (1). In the metropolitan Salt Lake area, we have roughly 300,000 households, and over a million faucets total at the very least. If even one in ten faucets leaks, we have 500,000 gallons of wasted water in a single day. By the way, do you have any leaking faucets in your house?
There are many simple everyday tasks that we do without paying much attention to how we use water, such as tooth brushing, dish washing, doing laundry. With a little thought and effort we can conserve water doing every one of them. The Utah Division of Water Resources published the following water-saving tips:
· Perform an annual maintenance check on your evaporative (swamp) cooler. Check for and fix any leaks you find.
· Wash only full loads in your washing machine, or adjust the water level to reflect the size of the load.
· Pay attention to your water bill and become familiar with your water meter—use them to track your water use and detect leaks.
· Purchase appliances that offer water- and energy-efficient cycle options.
· Fix leaky plumbing fixtures, faucets and appliances in the house.
· Show children how to turn off the faucets completely after each use.
· Locate your master water shut-off valve so that water can be saved if a pipe bursts.
· Install aerators on every faucet. This could save you as much as 1 gallon every minute you use them.
· Be aware! Listen for drips and leaks around the house. (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Conserve Water 1). These tips alone will not solve the problem, but used in conjunction with our proposed solutions they will get us closer to solving the problem.
So far we talked about the water usage problem inside our houses, but 67 percent of the household water usage in Utah goes towards lawn watering (Figure 2). Sadly, “Utahns use more water than they need” (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan). We often see sprinklers watering sidewalks and driveways instead of lawns, so it is obvious that just by simply adjusting sprinklers we can save water and money.
To learn about the work being done by the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District towards water conservation, we interviewed its representative Kris Sagers. He started by first formulating the problem as follows. “Even though we have low precipitation in Utah, the typical homeowner on average uses about 50” of water to water their yard. The average lawn (Kentucky Bluegrass) requires anywhere from 25-35” of water to maintain. This is definitely the place to start saving.” Sagers then suggested limiting grass to the areas that are flat and primarily used for recreational purposes. Do watering late at night or early in the morning so that the water has time to get down into the root system to feed the lawn. Also make sure that your sprinkler system is getting good coverage, and if needed, space the heads closer together to fix any dry spots. Altering watering patterns to the particular season will help as well--shorter times in the spring and fall, and longer in the hot summer months.
Sagers also suggested using water-wise plants to cut water usage. Utah’s native grasses such as Blue Grama and Buffalo grass require significantly less water—only 0.5” once every 12-14 days. Mulches, rocks, and other hardscapes are also good choices to use instead of grass in places like the mow strips and any areas of the yard that have severe slopes, that require huge amounts of water to keep green. Sagers and his associates work with contractors, nurseries, and cities to promote the advantages of water-tolerant landscaping in new construction.
Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District works in partnership with other water agencies and the State of Utah to promote water conservation. The “slow the flow’ ad campaign is one of the examples. “These ads are currently running on television to make people aware of the need to watch their management of water,” Sagers says. However, these ads only reach a small portion of the target audience.
So here is the situation now. We do have a water crisis, and the people of Utah are aware of it. In a recent Dan Jones & Associates poll, 83% of Utahns felt that it was very important to conserve water, and that 73% strongly supported some sort of ordinance restricting the watering of lawns between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm (Sagers). So, the citizens of Utah are concerned about the water situation, but the question is whether we are doing enough to solve the problem, and the answer is no. When and how do we start to act?
We propose a two-part solution. First, education. We need to start as early as possible by creating programs in school to inform and teach our children of the crisis that we are in. We must raise awareness about the urgency of the situation and the ways they can save water at home. We need more teachers prepared to work with children on water conservation. Students should be provided with more lessons, simple visual aids, and hands-on experiments on the issue in schools.Then, kids and parents, working together can start to see the benefits of these programs in their homes. It should not be a one-time event, but an ongoing process. We also should not forget the well-known fact that many habits we possess are formed in early childhood and are hard to change later in life. That is why all the appeals to conserve water addressed to the adults often fall on deaf ears. To keep adults informed about water saving benefits cities should include pamphlets in the monthly water bill that promote easy water conserving tips.
What adults often understand best are monetary incentives and disincentives. For example, several years ago, Cedar City changed its water billing procedure from a declining rate to a progressive one (Gillespie 2). “For example, residents are charged 48 cents per one thousand gallons of water they use up to 8,000 gallons. From there it jumps to 60 cents per thousand gallons up to 25,000 gallons at which point it tops out at $1.20,” says Cedar City Engineer Kit Wareham, “We’ve seen pretty good declines in water usage.” So part two of our solution is to work out a system of monetary measures that encourages good water usage and discourages waste. It can be modeled on the Cedar City experience or based on current rates used for billing by SLC Department of Public Utilities as shown below (State of Utah. SLC Department of Public Utilities. Billing information 2):
Water Rate Schedule - Rates & Payments
Article IX. Rates And Payments
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS (SINGLE)
Winter Months (November - March,Inclusive) City Water Rates County Water Rates
All water metered 0.88 $1.19
Summer Months (April - October,Inclusive) City Water Rates County Water Rates
Block 1: 1 through 9 hundred cubic feet of water $0.88 $1.19
Block 2: 10 through 29 hundred cubic feet of water $1.35 $1.83
Block 3: Excess over 29 hundred cubic feet of water $1.88 $2.54
These payments don’t take into account any penalty for excessive or wasteful usage of water. The baseline water use for Utah, established in 1995, is 321 gpcd. Now Utahns consume 293 gpcd, and according to the Utah State Plan, it should be 25% less by 2050 (State of Utah. Division of Water Resources. Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan 2). So, the baseline should be re-established in accordance with the plan, and there should be a penalty in the billing system for those who exceed the limit. For example, if we take for baseline 2900 cubic feet of water, it would be:
Block 1(saving): 100 -- 900 cubic feet of water $0.75
Block 2(under baseline): 1000 – 2900 cubic feet of water $1.35
Block 3(exceed or wasteful): over 2900 cubic feet of water $4.00
These numbers are just examples, but the main principle is that a wasteful use of water should be discouraged by significantly higher billing rates. We think it will be a fair solution because if those who waste our water sources don’t pay now, we will all have to pay in the near future. At the same time, people who save water should be rewarded. Part of the revenue can be directed towards children’s educational programs we proposed earlier; the rest will be used for improvement and development of the water infrastructure.
Even though we still have to develop new sources of water, conservation is the easiest way to have enough water in our future. Starting today, if every household saved as little as five gallons of water a day, what would be the result? The yearly savings would be 1825 gallons per household (an average, 73 additional showers), and 547 million gallons per Salt Lake Valley.
So with regard to the water problem in Utah, the bottom line is this. Nature’s gifts such as snowy winters and rainy springs will not always solve the problem—they are only a short-term relief. Many citizens have already internalized this problem, and have started to act—“the State’s residential water use has dropped by 18 percent since 2000” (“Saving Water; Saving Utah” 1), but we need the full participation of everyone in this effort. Water is essential to our way of life and to every living breathing plant and animal upon this earth. If we don’t have water, we will not survive. We are the responsible stewards of this precious resource, so let’s begin today to do something about it before it’s too late. The water is running.
My assignment #3 (Illegal Immigration—Can We Deal with It in a Rational Way? )
Writing 1010-015
July 23rd, 2009
Illegal Immigration—Can We Deal with It in a Rational Way?
The United States, a country of immigrants from the very start, currently has the issue of immigration that continues to be a hot spot. As a legal immigrant myself, I know firsthand that the immigration law is strongly enforced for those who chose a legal way of entering this country. At the same time, America has a problem of illegal immigration, so difficult and multi-faceted, that all attempts to solve it have not been successful. Year after year, the situation becomes more complicated and acute so it requires an immediate solution. During the past decades, the issue of illegal immigration has been discussed extensively and passionately by politicians, various lobbies, social scientists and journalists proposing a wide range of solutions. There are some who advocate a total ban on illegal immigration, and there are others who advance a very liberal approach to allowing millions of temporary workers into this country. Is it possible to find a solution that would satisfy everybody? To make proposals look credible, their authors use a wide arsenal of rhetorical techniques to win the argument.
Two fairly recent op-ed columns on illegal immigration that were written for general audiences are good examples of the use of rhetoric in advancing the authors’ positions. The titles of both articles reflect their main ideas. Both writers agree on the urgency and necessity of solving the problem of the illegal immigration now, but offer different solutions. One focuses solely on the change in the immigration law by adding an extensive guest-worker program, while the other claims that only a two-step action (complete border control followed by the full amnesty for the illegal immigrants already in this country) will do. The question for us is which of them uses rhetoric more effectively in persuading their readers.
The first column, “Immigration Law Should Reflect Our Dynamic Labor Market,” by Daniel Griswold, was published in the The Dallas Morning News on April 27, 2008. Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington; he has authored or co-authored major studies on globalization, trade, and immigration. In his article, Griswold states, that the American immigration law collides with reality. We do not have a simple system that provides for guest workers to enter the United States. At the same time, Griswold says, millions of low-skilled illegals cross the border because there are many jobs for them that Americans do not want to take any more. In the author’s view, illegal immigrants mostly are not bad people--they seek economic opportunities that are not available in their home countries. Griswold says that we can either continue to put the emphasis on the enforcing of the current immigration law spending more billions of dollars, or we can change our immigration rules to reflect the reality of our labor market. Griswold’s main point is this: if millions of otherwise good and law-abiding people pursuing their reasonable goals are forced to violate a law, it indicates a problem with the law. He reminds us that we have already had a successful historical experience with legal temporary guest workers in the early 1950’s, when Congress “rumpled up enforcement” along with the larger number of guest-worker visas. As a result, illegal border crossings dropped 95 percent. Griswold then points out that there are other examples from our history when, by changing the law, we made it “compatible with how people actually arrange their lives.” Such examples should guide Congress in its approach to fixing the Immigration Law.
The author of the second op-ed, “First a Wall--Then Amnesty,” is Charles Krauthammer. He is a widely respected columnist for The Washington Post. He also writes for New Republic, Time, and Weekly Standard and has numerous awards, including the Pulitzer Prize and the Bradley Prize. “First a Wall--Then Amnesty” appeared in the Washington post on April 7, 2006. Krauthammer’s main thesis is that the solution to the illegal immigration problem must be done in sequence: first, “to regain control of our borders” (which, according to him, we have lost) and second, to “legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.” Krauthammer reminds us that during the immigration reform of 1986 “nearly 3 million people got permanent residency,” but the reform did not include a mechanism to stop the continued flow of illegal immigrants. So now we have 11 million more of them in our country, and Americans are wary of the proposed solutions that deal only with the legalization. Krauthammer also asserts that the employer sanctions (the basis of the 1986 reform) were “not only useless,” but even “pernicious”, because the border control enforcement “is the job of government, not landscapers.” His main point is that first of all we need to convince those opposed to legalization that we can radically reduce future illegal immigration. The way to do it is to build a tight barrier on the border. Even though border fences are ugly and expensive, they work, and many countries have been successful “in keeping out potential infiltrators.” After we reduce “the river of illegals to a manageable trickle,” Krauthammer says, “dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration” will become politically possible. In conclusion, Krauthammer tells us that the final result will not be a “mushy compromise,” but “full amnesty (earned with back taxes, learning English, and the like) with full border control.” And the problem would not only be solved, but we would also act “as one nation.”
As we can see, both articles look logical and convincing, so it is important for the reader to understand the rhetorical techniques each author uses to convince their target audiences.
In his first paragraph, Griswold uses strong emotive words, such as “many virtues” and “glaring exception.” He sets up his main topic, the United States as a nation of laws, and highlights one exception to that. “Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable, respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration." The author's goal here is to appeal to our sense of virtue and to emphasize the gravity of the problem.
In Krauthammer's introductory paragraph, he brings his readers into the conversation by using words such as "our," "we," "us" ("our borders," "we who decide," and "among us.") He says, "Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us." The use of the personal pronouns serves to involve the reader in the debate and transforms a general societal problem into a personal one. Here the author tries to reconcile the value of sovereignty with our sense of humanity.
In the next paragraph, Krauthammer builds his credibility by being objective in considering the two main sides of the problem. On the one hand, "No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer." On the other hand, by itself, "legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come." Krauthammer's first point is to appeal to our sense of goodness and the second one is to appeal to our sense of reason. By considering the two sides of the problem the author demonstrates his fairness, thus gains reader's sympathy.
Another interesting rhetorical device is how one frames an issue. For example, Griswold presents the problem of illegal immigration as a lack of an effective guest-worker program. Thus his solution is a simple choice between defending the border at all costs vs. passing a expansive guest-worker program. Griswold says,
We can spend billions more to beef up border patrols [..] erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande [..] raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job. Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.
He deliberately describes one possible solution in the darkest and most extreme terms (“spend billions more,” “hundreds of miles of ugly fence,” “raid more discount stores,” and “require all Americans to carry a national ID.”) Then he paints his preferred solution as simply logical (“to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.”) In describing possible approaches, Griswold uses the “difficult-easy” pattern making it clear which one the author wants us to accept. In doing so, he appeals to both our emotions and sense of reason.
Using logical arguments and reasoning is one of the strongest rhetorical tools that help authors to win their readers over. Here is, for example, how Krauthammer uses this technique.
If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.
Here he uses the cause-and-effect argument (if—then), then makes his “sequencing” proposal while enhancing his own credibility by citing an expert on the subject, and concludes the paragraph with the likely outcome. Krauthammer’s logical reasoning is clear to the readers and works effectively towards advancing the author’s argument.
The authors also build their credibility by using statistics, facts, and historical examples. Griswold furthers his argument by framing the illegal immigration issue in terms of a well-known historical event. He writes, “In the 1920s and '30s, Prohibition turned millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans into lawbreakers and spawned an underworld of moon-shining, boot-legging and related criminal activity." Since most of people know about Prohibition and its unintended effects, they can probably agree with the author when he moves to his point in the next sentences, "We eventually made the right choice to tax and regulate alcohol rather than prohibit it."
As we can see from the examples above, rhetoric is very important, and its skillful usage determines a writer’s ultimate success. In our chosen examples, both authors have high reputations. Both Griswold and Krauthammer are very accomplished and experienced writers, but after reading their two articles, I decided that Krauthammer’s piece is more convincing to the reader. From the first sentences he engages the reader in the discussion; his whole op-ed is built as a dialog with the reader.
Krauthammer constructs his writing using strong and logical arguments; he reviews the issue in its historical context, honestly acknowledges the other points of view, and makes concessions and rebuttals. In my opinion, Krauthammer uses the most successful combination of rhetorical techniques. I did not find any fallacies in his writing, while in Griswold’s piece I noticed a couple of them. For example, Griswold claims, “The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market." So, does the last part of this sentence mean that changing the law will not cost us anything? Another problem with Griswold's writing is that he does not specify what kind of change in the immigration law we should enact to solve the problem. Instead, he uses general phrases like "match with reality," or "The law must be compatible with how people actually arrange their lives." In Krauthammer's article everything is clear and logical, and supported by strong evidence and examples. His article helps us to understand the power of properly used rhetoric. By using a rich and balanced complex of rhetorical methods (including voice tone, word choice, sentence structure and tempo of writing), Krauthammer successfully achieves the goal of persuading his audience of the urgency of the problem and his proposed ways of solving it.
The issue of illegal immigration is complex and often polemic. Therefore, it is important to carefully balance each argument. It is not always easy to distinguish between logical reasoning that might produce positive result and fallacies that may lead to mistaken conclusion. The art of rhetoric may serve to reinforce sound logic, but also sometimes disguises an author's bias, preferences and subjectivity. When considering such a loaded topic as illegal immigration, the reader must always take into account the power of rhetoric.
July 23rd, 2009
Illegal Immigration—Can We Deal with It in a Rational Way?
The United States, a country of immigrants from the very start, currently has the issue of immigration that continues to be a hot spot. As a legal immigrant myself, I know firsthand that the immigration law is strongly enforced for those who chose a legal way of entering this country. At the same time, America has a problem of illegal immigration, so difficult and multi-faceted, that all attempts to solve it have not been successful. Year after year, the situation becomes more complicated and acute so it requires an immediate solution. During the past decades, the issue of illegal immigration has been discussed extensively and passionately by politicians, various lobbies, social scientists and journalists proposing a wide range of solutions. There are some who advocate a total ban on illegal immigration, and there are others who advance a very liberal approach to allowing millions of temporary workers into this country. Is it possible to find a solution that would satisfy everybody? To make proposals look credible, their authors use a wide arsenal of rhetorical techniques to win the argument.
Two fairly recent op-ed columns on illegal immigration that were written for general audiences are good examples of the use of rhetoric in advancing the authors’ positions. The titles of both articles reflect their main ideas. Both writers agree on the urgency and necessity of solving the problem of the illegal immigration now, but offer different solutions. One focuses solely on the change in the immigration law by adding an extensive guest-worker program, while the other claims that only a two-step action (complete border control followed by the full amnesty for the illegal immigrants already in this country) will do. The question for us is which of them uses rhetoric more effectively in persuading their readers.
The first column, “Immigration Law Should Reflect Our Dynamic Labor Market,” by Daniel Griswold, was published in the The Dallas Morning News on April 27, 2008. Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington; he has authored or co-authored major studies on globalization, trade, and immigration. In his article, Griswold states, that the American immigration law collides with reality. We do not have a simple system that provides for guest workers to enter the United States. At the same time, Griswold says, millions of low-skilled illegals cross the border because there are many jobs for them that Americans do not want to take any more. In the author’s view, illegal immigrants mostly are not bad people--they seek economic opportunities that are not available in their home countries. Griswold says that we can either continue to put the emphasis on the enforcing of the current immigration law spending more billions of dollars, or we can change our immigration rules to reflect the reality of our labor market. Griswold’s main point is this: if millions of otherwise good and law-abiding people pursuing their reasonable goals are forced to violate a law, it indicates a problem with the law. He reminds us that we have already had a successful historical experience with legal temporary guest workers in the early 1950’s, when Congress “rumpled up enforcement” along with the larger number of guest-worker visas. As a result, illegal border crossings dropped 95 percent. Griswold then points out that there are other examples from our history when, by changing the law, we made it “compatible with how people actually arrange their lives.” Such examples should guide Congress in its approach to fixing the Immigration Law.
The author of the second op-ed, “First a Wall--Then Amnesty,” is Charles Krauthammer. He is a widely respected columnist for The Washington Post. He also writes for New Republic, Time, and Weekly Standard and has numerous awards, including the Pulitzer Prize and the Bradley Prize. “First a Wall--Then Amnesty” appeared in the Washington post on April 7, 2006. Krauthammer’s main thesis is that the solution to the illegal immigration problem must be done in sequence: first, “to regain control of our borders” (which, according to him, we have lost) and second, to “legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.” Krauthammer reminds us that during the immigration reform of 1986 “nearly 3 million people got permanent residency,” but the reform did not include a mechanism to stop the continued flow of illegal immigrants. So now we have 11 million more of them in our country, and Americans are wary of the proposed solutions that deal only with the legalization. Krauthammer also asserts that the employer sanctions (the basis of the 1986 reform) were “not only useless,” but even “pernicious”, because the border control enforcement “is the job of government, not landscapers.” His main point is that first of all we need to convince those opposed to legalization that we can radically reduce future illegal immigration. The way to do it is to build a tight barrier on the border. Even though border fences are ugly and expensive, they work, and many countries have been successful “in keeping out potential infiltrators.” After we reduce “the river of illegals to a manageable trickle,” Krauthammer says, “dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration” will become politically possible. In conclusion, Krauthammer tells us that the final result will not be a “mushy compromise,” but “full amnesty (earned with back taxes, learning English, and the like) with full border control.” And the problem would not only be solved, but we would also act “as one nation.”
As we can see, both articles look logical and convincing, so it is important for the reader to understand the rhetorical techniques each author uses to convince their target audiences.
In his first paragraph, Griswold uses strong emotive words, such as “many virtues” and “glaring exception.” He sets up his main topic, the United States as a nation of laws, and highlights one exception to that. “Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable, respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration." The author's goal here is to appeal to our sense of virtue and to emphasize the gravity of the problem.
In Krauthammer's introductory paragraph, he brings his readers into the conversation by using words such as "our," "we," "us" ("our borders," "we who decide," and "among us.") He says, "Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us." The use of the personal pronouns serves to involve the reader in the debate and transforms a general societal problem into a personal one. Here the author tries to reconcile the value of sovereignty with our sense of humanity.
In the next paragraph, Krauthammer builds his credibility by being objective in considering the two main sides of the problem. On the one hand, "No one of good will wants to see these 11 million suffer." On the other hand, by itself, "legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come." Krauthammer's first point is to appeal to our sense of goodness and the second one is to appeal to our sense of reason. By considering the two sides of the problem the author demonstrates his fairness, thus gains reader's sympathy.
Another interesting rhetorical device is how one frames an issue. For example, Griswold presents the problem of illegal immigration as a lack of an effective guest-worker program. Thus his solution is a simple choice between defending the border at all costs vs. passing a expansive guest-worker program. Griswold says,
We can spend billions more to beef up border patrols [..] erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande [..] raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job. Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.
He deliberately describes one possible solution in the darkest and most extreme terms (“spend billions more,” “hundreds of miles of ugly fence,” “raid more discount stores,” and “require all Americans to carry a national ID.”) Then he paints his preferred solution as simply logical (“to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.”) In describing possible approaches, Griswold uses the “difficult-easy” pattern making it clear which one the author wants us to accept. In doing so, he appeals to both our emotions and sense of reason.
Using logical arguments and reasoning is one of the strongest rhetorical tools that help authors to win their readers over. Here is, for example, how Krauthammer uses this technique.
If the government can demonstrate that it can control future immigration, there will be infinitely less resistance to dealing generously with the residual population of past immigration. And, as Mickey Kaus and others have suggested, that may require that the two provisions be sequenced. First, radical border control by physical means. Then, shortly thereafter, radical legalization of those already here. To achieve national consensus on legalization, we will need a short lag time between the two provisions, perhaps a year or two, to demonstrate to the skeptics that the current wave of illegals is indeed the last.
Here he uses the cause-and-effect argument (if—then), then makes his “sequencing” proposal while enhancing his own credibility by citing an expert on the subject, and concludes the paragraph with the likely outcome. Krauthammer’s logical reasoning is clear to the readers and works effectively towards advancing the author’s argument.
The authors also build their credibility by using statistics, facts, and historical examples. Griswold furthers his argument by framing the illegal immigration issue in terms of a well-known historical event. He writes, “In the 1920s and '30s, Prohibition turned millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans into lawbreakers and spawned an underworld of moon-shining, boot-legging and related criminal activity." Since most of people know about Prohibition and its unintended effects, they can probably agree with the author when he moves to his point in the next sentences, "We eventually made the right choice to tax and regulate alcohol rather than prohibit it."
As we can see from the examples above, rhetoric is very important, and its skillful usage determines a writer’s ultimate success. In our chosen examples, both authors have high reputations. Both Griswold and Krauthammer are very accomplished and experienced writers, but after reading their two articles, I decided that Krauthammer’s piece is more convincing to the reader. From the first sentences he engages the reader in the discussion; his whole op-ed is built as a dialog with the reader.
Krauthammer constructs his writing using strong and logical arguments; he reviews the issue in its historical context, honestly acknowledges the other points of view, and makes concessions and rebuttals. In my opinion, Krauthammer uses the most successful combination of rhetorical techniques. I did not find any fallacies in his writing, while in Griswold’s piece I noticed a couple of them. For example, Griswold claims, “The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market." So, does the last part of this sentence mean that changing the law will not cost us anything? Another problem with Griswold's writing is that he does not specify what kind of change in the immigration law we should enact to solve the problem. Instead, he uses general phrases like "match with reality," or "The law must be compatible with how people actually arrange their lives." In Krauthammer's article everything is clear and logical, and supported by strong evidence and examples. His article helps us to understand the power of properly used rhetoric. By using a rich and balanced complex of rhetorical methods (including voice tone, word choice, sentence structure and tempo of writing), Krauthammer successfully achieves the goal of persuading his audience of the urgency of the problem and his proposed ways of solving it.
The issue of illegal immigration is complex and often polemic. Therefore, it is important to carefully balance each argument. It is not always easy to distinguish between logical reasoning that might produce positive result and fallacies that may lead to mistaken conclusion. The art of rhetoric may serve to reinforce sound logic, but also sometimes disguises an author's bias, preferences and subjectivity. When considering such a loaded topic as illegal immigration, the reader must always take into account the power of rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)