Water for Schools
Menu

Worksheet Grade 10 English Language Arts

Alderbrook's Stormwater Fee: Testing Two Opposing Arguments

Grade 10 students compare an editorial and a reply letter on a stormwater fee, test each writer's claims against a town fact sheet, and write a fair argument.

Objectives

  1. Students will compare how two writers use the same facts about a flooded neighborhood and a proposed fee to reach opposite conclusions.
  2. Students will test each writer's claims against a neutral fact sheet and classify them as accurate, overstated, or contradicted.
  3. Students will identify a false either/or claim and a slippery-slope argument and explain why each weakens the argument that contains it.
  4. Students will write an argument paragraph that cites numbered facts and represents the opposing side fairly before answering it.

Vocabulary

Impervious surface
An impervious surface is any hard surface, like a road, roof, or parking lot, that rain cannot soak through. The more impervious surface a town has, the more stormwater rushes off it.

Also: stormwater fee, assessed value, concession, false either/or, slippery slope, connotation

Teacher overview

A stormwater fee charges property owners according to how much hard surface, such as roof and pavement, sheds rain into a town's drains instead of letting it soak into the ground. Fee proposals often draw opposing letters that cite the same local facts, which makes them useful for teaching students to check each side against a neutral source. This worksheet gives students three short fictional documents from the fictional town of Alderbrook: a newspaper editorial supporting a proposed fee, a resident's letter opposing it, and the town public works department's fact sheet on the proposal. Students compare how the two writers use the Millpond flooding and the five-dollar charge, test each writer's statements against the fact sheet, and finish by writing their own argument paragraph to the town council. All names, places, and figures are invented for this worksheet. Plan on about 10 minutes of reading and 35 minutes for the items; students should read Documents 1 and 2 before starting, and Document 3 before item 3.

Alderbrook's Stormwater Fee: Testing Two Opposing Arguments — Grade 10 English Language Arts
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Student Worksheet

Read all three documents. They are fictional and were written for this worksheet. Documents 1 and 2 are opinion pieces. Document 3 is the town's own description of the proposal, which you will use to check the two writers.

Document 1. Editorial: A Fair Way to Pay for Alderbrook's Flooding Problem

From the editorial board of the fictional Alderbrook Ledger

After the last heavy storm, three streets in the Millpond neighborhood flooded again, and the town spent money it had not planned to spend clearing drains and repairing pavement. Millpond does not flood by accident. Every roof, driveway, and parking lot uphill sends rain into the storm drains instead of letting it soak into the ground, and the drains under Millpond have to carry all of it. Alderbrook pays for its storm drains out of the general budget, which means a small apartment building and a large shopping center pay the same for drainage, even though the shopping center's wide roof and parking lot send far more runoff into our drains.

The town council has proposed a stormwater fee that would charge each property according to its hard, paved surface. A typical home would pay about five dollars a month, less than the cost of a sandwich, while large paved properties would pay much more. Owners who build rain gardens or permeable pavement could lower their charge, which gives the largest lots a reason to hold more water on their own land.

We do not pretend the fee costs nothing. For a household already stretched by rising bills, five dollars is real money, and we are glad the council has proposed a half-price rate for households in the town's tax-relief program. We would also ask the council to review that rate after the first year. Even so, Alderbrook is already paying for its flooding through emergency repairs that arrive without warning and come out of the same taxes everyone pays. The council should approve the stormwater fee when it votes on October 21.

Document 2. Letter to the Editor: The Council Should Vote No on the Stormwater Fee

From a fictional resident of Ridge Street, Alderbrook

Your editorial calls the stormwater fee fair. I have lived in Alderbrook for forty years, and I would like to correct the record. You wrote that a small apartment building and Alderbrook Plaza pay the same for drainage. They do not. The Plaza pays a property tax bill many times larger than any apartment owner on my street, and the drains have always been paid for out of those taxes.

Millpond floods because the town let the Mill Road drain fill with mud, not because of anyone's parking lot. I will grant that the Plaza's lot sends a good deal of water downhill, but a clean drain would carry it. Instead of fixing that one pipe, the council wants $60 a year from every household in town, collected forever, for a problem on three streets. Nothing in the proposal stops that money from vanishing into the general budget the way so much else does. And once the town can charge us for the rain that falls on our roofs, there is no charge it cannot invent. Clean out and enlarge the Mill Road drain with money the town already has, and vote no on the rain tax.

Document 3. Alderbrook Department of Public Works: Proposed Stormwater Fee Fact Sheet

Fictional fact sheet. Refer to each fact by its label, such as F3.

Label Question Answer from the Department of Public Works
F1 How are storm drains paid for now? From the town's general budget. Most of the general budget comes from property taxes, which are based on each property's assessed value (what the town estimates the property is worth). A property's tax bill does not depend on how much paved surface it has.
F2 What has flooding cost the town? Unplanned drain cleaning and pavement repair after storms cost $410,000 over the last three years, paid from the general budget.
F3 Why does Millpond flood? Three Millpond streets flooded in four of the last five years. A 2024 inspection found the Mill Road drain pipe about one-third filled with sediment. The same inspection found that, even when clean, the pipe is too small for the runoff it now receives. Since 1995 the paved area draining toward Millpond has roughly doubled, mostly because of new commercial lots.
F4 How would the fee be calculated? $5 per month for each 2,500 square feet of hard (impervious) surface, such as roofs, driveways, and parking lots. A typical single-family home has about 2,500 square feet of hard surface and would pay $5 per month. Alderbrook Plaza has about 300,000 square feet of hard surface and would pay $600 per month.
F5 Can anyone pay less? Households enrolled in the town's tax-relief program would pay half the regular rate. Any property with rain gardens, permeable pavement, or other approved runoff controls could lower its charge by up to 40 percent.
F6 Where would the money go? Into a separate stormwater fund. Town law would allow the fund to be spent only on storm drains, culverts, and runoff-control projects. The first planned project is replacing the Mill Road drain with a larger pipe.
F7 When is the decision? The town council votes on October 21.

Questions

  1. In one sentence each, state the position of Document 1 and the position of Document 2. Then name the specific action each writer wants the council to take on October 21.
  2. Both writers use the Millpond flooding. Copy and complete the chart below.
What the writer says causes the Millpond flooding What the writer concludes the town should do
Document 1 (editorial)
Document 2 (letter)
  1. Read F3. Name the detail in F3 that supports Document 1's explanation of the flooding and the detail that supports Document 2's explanation. Then explain what is wrong with the way the letter's sentence "Millpond floods because the town let the Mill Road drain fill with mud, not because of anyone's parking lot" presents the cause, even though part of the sentence is accurate.
  2. Document 1 says a small apartment building and a large shopping center "pay the same for drainage." Document 2 says they do not. Using F1, decide which writer is accurate on this point. Then explain which part of the editorial's fairness argument still stands after the correction.
  3. Document 1 describes the charge for a typical home as "about five dollars a month, less than the cost of a sandwich." Document 2 describes it as "$60 a year from every household in town, collected forever." Both describe the same monthly charge. Explain what each wording is meant to make a reader think about the fee. Then use F4 or F5 to identify one word in the letter's version that is not accurate, and explain why.
  4. Document 2 says the council wants the fee "instead of fixing that one pipe" and that nothing stops the money from "vanishing into the general budget." Use F6 to evaluate both statements. How much weight should a council member give these two parts of the letter, and why?
  5. Reread the sentence in Document 2 that begins "And once the town can charge us." Name the type of faulty reasoning it uses, and explain why the sentence gives no reason to reject this particular fee.
  6. Each writer concedes one point to the other side. Quote each writer's concession. For each one, explain how the writer limits the concession so it does not damage the main claim, and use the fact sheet to decide whether that limit holds up.
  7. Document 1 calls the charge a "stormwater fee," while Document 2 ends by calling it a "rain tax." Explain the difference in connotation between the two labels and why each label suits its writer's argument. Then find one other pair of phrases in which the two writers describe the same thing in different words, not counting the phrases quoted in item 5, and explain the effect of each writer's choice.
  8. After checking both documents against the fact sheet, which writer's reasoning holds up better? Give one strength and one limitation of each document, and support at least two of your four points with a labeled fact from Document 3.
  9. Write a paragraph of six to eight sentences addressed to the Alderbrook town council that takes your own position on the stormwater fee. Your paragraph must state a precise claim, use at least two facts from Document 3 and name their labels, present the strongest point from the side you disagree with fairly and then answer it, and avoid repeating any statement you found to be overstated or contradicted in items 3 through 7.

From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.

Answer Key
  1. Answer: Document 1 argues that a stormwater fee charged by paved surface is a fair way to pay for flooding, and it asks the council to approve the fee at the October 21 vote. Document 2 argues that the fee is unfair and unnecessary, and it asks the council to vote no and instead clean out and enlarge the Mill Road drain with money the town already has. A complete answer names both the position and the action for each writer.
  2. Answer: Document 1: the cause is runoff from roofs, driveways, and parking lots uphill, which the drains under Millpond must carry; the conclusion is that each property should pay according to how much paved surface it has, so the council should approve the fee. Document 2: the cause is the town's failure to keep the Mill Road drain clear of mud; the conclusion is that the town should fix that one drain with existing money and that a town-wide fee is not needed. The point of the chart is that both writers start from the same flooding and draw opposite conclusions because they name different causes.
  3. Answer: F3's statements that the pipe is too small for current runoff even when clean, and that paved area draining toward Millpond has roughly doubled since 1995 mostly from commercial lots, support Document 1. F3's statement that the pipe was about one-third filled with sediment supports Document 2. The letter's sentence presents the two causes as if only one could be true, which is a false either/or claim; F3 shows both causes are present, so the phrase "not because of anyone's parking lot" is contradicted by the fact sheet. Strong answers also note that Document 1 leaves out the sediment, which makes its explanation incomplete, though nothing in F3 contradicts it.
  4. Answer: Document 2 is accurate on this point. F1 says property taxes are based on assessed value, so a shopping center worth far more than a small apartment building pays far more toward the general budget, and Document 1's phrase "pay the same" is an overstatement. F1 also says a tax bill does not depend on paved surface, so the editorial's underlying point survives: what a property pays toward drainage now has no connection to how much runoff it sends into the drains. A precise version of the editorial's claim would say that properties pay according to their value rather than their runoff.
  5. Answer: The editorial gives a monthly figure and compares it to a sandwich so the charge seems small and ordinary. The letter gives a yearly total and adds "every household" and "collected forever" so the charge seems larger, universal, and permanent. The inaccurate word is "every." F5 says households in the tax-relief program would pay half the regular rate, and properties with approved runoff controls could pay up to 40 percent less, so not every household would pay $60 a year. Also accept a student who uses F4 to point out that the charge depends on each property's hard surface, so a household with much more hard surface than a typical home would pay more than $60 a year.
  6. Answer: F6 contradicts both statements. The fee money would go into a separate fund that town law would limit to drains, culverts, and runoff projects, so it would not go into the general budget, and the first planned project is replacing the Mill Road drain with a larger pipe, so the fee is the plan for fixing that pipe rather than an alternative to it. A council member should give these two parts of the letter little weight, because the proposal's own terms show they are not accurate. Credit a student who adds that a resident could still reasonably ask whether a future council might change the law, since that is a different and more careful claim than the one the letter makes.
  7. Answer: It is a slippery-slope argument. The sentence claims that one step, charging for runoff from roofs, will lead to unlimited new charges, yet it offers no evidence that the first step causes the later ones. It says nothing about whether this fee is fair or needed, so it gives no reason to reject it. Also accept "appeal to fear" if the student explains that the sentence relies on the reader's worry about future charges rather than on evidence about this one.
  8. Answer: Document 1 concedes: "We do not pretend the fee costs nothing. For a household already stretched by rising bills, five dollars is real money." It limits the concession by pointing to the half-price rate, asking for a review after one year, and arguing that the town already pays for flooding through emergency repairs. That limit holds up, because F5 confirms the half-price rate and F2 confirms $410,000 in unplanned repairs paid from the general budget. Document 2 concedes: "I will grant that the Plaza's lot sends a good deal of water downhill, but a clean drain would carry it." It limits the concession by claiming a clean drain is enough, and that limit does not hold up, because F3 says the pipe is too small for current runoff even when clean.
  9. Answer: A "fee" suggests a charge for a specific service that is tied to how much of it a property uses, which fits the editorial's argument that properties should pay for the runoff they create. A "tax" suggests a general charge imposed by government, and "rain tax" suggests that owners are being charged for the weather, something they cannot control, which fits the letter's argument that the charge is unfair. Accept any other accurate pair with an explanation, such as the editorial's "Alderbrook's Flooding Problem" against the letter's "a problem on three streets" (the editorial treats the flooding as the whole town's concern, while the letter shrinks it to one neighborhood), or the editorial's "large paved properties" against the letter's "Alderbrook Plaza" (the editorial speaks of a category, while the letter names a single business).
  10. Answer: Answers will vary; accept either conclusion if it is supported with accurate strengths and limitations. Strengths of Document 1 include its runoff explanation (supported by F3) and its point that payment is not tied to runoff (supported by F1). Limitations of Document 1 include the overstated "pay the same" (F1) and the omission of the sediment in the drain (F3). Strengths of Document 2 include its correction about property taxes (F1) and its point that the drain was partly blocked (F3). Limitations of Document 2 include the false either/or about the cause (F3), the inaccurate "every household" (F5), the contradicted statements about the pipe and the general budget (F6), and the slippery-slope sentence. A strong response is likely to judge that Document 1 holds up better while naming its overstatement.
  11. Answer: Answers will vary. A proficient paragraph states a precise claim about the October 21 vote; uses at least two facts from Document 3 and names their labels; states the strongest point from the other side accurately, such as the affordability concern or the partly blocked drain for a student who supports the fee, or the doubled paved area or the separate fund for a student who opposes it, and answers it with a reason; and does not repeat "pay the same," "every household," "instead of fixing that one pipe," "vanishing into the general budget," or the false either/or about the cause of the flooding. A paragraph that misstates the opposing side or relies on a claim the fact sheet contradicts is not yet proficient.

Differentiation

Support

Give students the item 2 chart with the Document 1 row already completed, so they can use it as a model for the Document 2 row. For items 3 through 6, provide a claim-check frame to copy and complete: "Document ___ says ___. Fact ___ says ___. So the writer's statement is accurate / overstated / contradicted." For item 11, provide a five-box outline labeled claim, first fact with label, second fact with label, strongest opposing point, and my answer to it.

Extension

Ask students to write two questions the council should put to the Department of Public Works before the vote that the fact sheet does not answer, such as whether the general budget could pay for a larger Mill Road pipe without a fee, or how many properties would qualify for the runoff-control credit in F5. For each question, students explain which writer's argument a likely answer would strengthen and why.

ELL supports

Pre-teach stormwater fee, impervious surface, assessed value, concession, slippery slope, and connotation with a labeled example for each, including a simple picture of rain running off a paved lot compared with rain soaking into a lawn. Read Document 3 aloud with the class before item 3, and have students mark each fact label with "D1" or "D2" to show which writer it helps. Allow the item 2 chart to be completed in short phrases rather than full sentences.