Brazil's Water Shortage: Which Plan Has Less Impact

Article from The Guardian, written on May 21, assessing how the government has dealt with the water shortage and what were the pro’s and con’s of that plan of action.  

      After one of Brazil’s driest summer since the 1930’s, the country struggled with overcoming water shortages throughout the nation. In some areas, 9 million people depend on a single reservoir system that unfortunately many reached low records of water. Such a reservoir is the Cantareira system, an interconnection of five reservoirs that supply water to 47% of Sao Paulo’s 20 million residents. During the month of May the system was just using 8.6% of its capacity. As a result of this, the government has been rationing water in the poorer suburbs near the edge of the city or who live in higher areas by shutting down the water. In most cases, the water in these homes is switched off from 9pm to 5am and there is a lack of water of the weekends. Some families go three of four days without water in their homes. Monica Porto, a professor of water quality and environmental engineering at the University of Sao Paulo says, “This is a way to reduce consumption that has less impact.”
       This knowledge claim could be analyzed from different angles. For example, this claim relies on Porto’s perception of “less impact”. Due to her personal knowledge of studying water she may have been exposed to different methods of water rationing that have produced dire results. Therefore, her knowledge of seeing worse lets her assess the situation in Brazil as having “little impact”. However, another professor, with the same credentials, could evaluate the damage in Brazil differently. This person would have different personal knowledge and upon seeing the damage claim that the system is having a large impact. Therefore, Porto’s analysis of the rationing having “little impact” is too dependent on her personal knowledge and her perception of “little”.
       In another direction, Porto might have also said this due to reason and facts. Having studied this academically, facts could have reshaped her idea of “little” as she knows the outcome of other methods. She might have also accepted the facts because of her paradigms. From her childhood education, Porto built up a paradigm that facts and information found in textbooks / taught in a class is correct. In this paradigm numbers are important and the larger the number the more sever the situation. To her, three of four days without water doesn't mean as much or doesn't have the same impact as 30 days or 4 months without water.
       The word “impact” is also dependent on Porto’s paradigm of numbers and how she thinks of the word. Does she mean to lessen the impact on the environment or the people? To lessen the impact of the environment would mean for there to be less water for civilians and focusing on watering parts of the land that have been affected by the drought. To lessen the impact on the people could be seen in two ways. Lessen the impact on the amount of people affected or lessen the impact of the severity on a small group of people. In conclusion, the statement depends on Porto’s perception and personal knowledge as well as shared knowledge with people that have the same number paradigm as her.

Word Count:556