Kevin's "putting a cap on the bottled water industry" Analasis

In the Article, the writer portrays Nestle Waters as a big billy that is picking on this poor defenseless town, because Nestle is trying to tap into a 600-acre reservation and extract its clean water. She plays on the audience's pity emotion to draw them to bear arms against these "attempts to strike blue gold" and follow others who have halted the bottling of water. She appeals to one sense of logic when she states "70 percent of whom rely on the Wekepeke for ground water to supply their home wells, were incensed and asked why another town would have the right to literally sell the water beneath their feet for global export to the highest bidder." This statement creates a sense of outrage in the reader, and causes them to become disgusted with what Nestle is doing.

To please all, she draws up a plan that includes a few steps that government should take. They are to make "an assessment of the state's available water supplies and needs - coupled with long-term climate change forecasts" and"a statewide law must be enacted that affirms that the waters of Massachusetts shall be protected in perpetuity for its inhabitants, first and foremost, and that communities and aquifer protection areas may ban out-of-state water exports." She allows room for calculations to be made and predictions created, instead of just all out boycotting the drilling. By doing this she is much more acredible and not just same crazy loon who wants to stir up trouble.