Water for Schools
Menu

Debate kit Grade 7 English Language Arts

Should Linden Shoals Recycle Wastewater Into Drinking Water?

A grade 7 debate kit on whether a fictional drought-prone town should recycle treated wastewater into its drinking supply, with two-sided evidence and a rubric.

Objectives

  1. Students will evaluate two-sided evidence on a water reuse resolution.
  2. Students will construct and deliver a rebuttal supported by named evidence.

Vocabulary

Potable reuse
Cleaning used water so thoroughly that it becomes safe drinking water again. Special plants use several layers of treatment and constant testing to make sure it is safe.
Drought
A long stretch of drier-than-normal weather that leaves too little water for people, farms, and nature. Droughts build slowly and can last for years.
Reservoir
A human-made lake, usually created by a dam, that stores water for later. Reservoirs supply cities and farms and help control floods.

Also: multi-barrier treatment

Teacher overview

This is a two-team structured debate for a 60-minute block, with a second session for prep if needed. Students argue for or against the fictional town of Linden Shoals recycling its treated wastewater into the drinking supply. The resolution is genuinely contested, because water reuse is a proven way to survive droughts, yet it raises real worries about cost and public trust. Both sides of the evidence file hold up under a fair reading.

Should Linden Shoals Recycle Wastewater Into Drinking Water? — Grade 7 English Language Arts
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: "The town of Linden Shoals should recycle its treated wastewater into drinking water to secure the town's supply during droughts."

Background: Linden Shoals is a fictional town that runs short of water in dry years. Its reservoir drops each summer. Right now, the town cleans its wastewater and sends it down the river. Recycling that water for drinking is called potable reuse. In this plan, the treated wastewater would pass through several more cleaning steps. Then it would be added back to the town's supply. This layered cleaning is called multi-barrier treatment, because each step removes what the last one missed.

The idea works in real places. Some large cities already recycle water this way. Still, many people feel uneasy about drinking water that started as wastewater. Some call it "toilet to tap," even after the water is fully cleaned. The town council must weigh water security against cost and public trust.

Roles: Divide the class into an affirmative team and a negative team. Each team prepares an opening, two evidence points, one rebuttal, and a closing. Assign two students as moderators who keep time and ask one follow-up question per side.

Evidence File

Case for recycling wastewater into drinking water:

  1. Potable reuse is proven at large scale. Orange County's system in California recycles about 130 million gallons a day back into its water supply. It is the world's largest facility of its kind. This shows the technology works for a real, large population. (Source: Orange County Water District.)
  2. A recycled supply does not depend on rain. In a drought, the reservoir falls, but the town still produces wastewater every day. Recycling that water gives Linden Shoals a steady source when it is needed most. (Reasoning from the background.)
  3. Multi-barrier treatment can meet drinking standards. The water passes through several cleaning steps and is tested at each one. A fictional town engineer's report for this debate estimates the recycled water would be cleaner than the reservoir water the town uses now. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate, not a documented figure.)

Case against recycling wastewater into drinking water:

  1. Public trust is a real barrier. Many residents distrust the idea of drinking recycled wastewater, even when it is fully cleaned. A fictional town survey created for this debate finds that many families would buy bottled water instead, which would hurt the plan. (Illustrative survey created for this debate.)
  2. The extra cleaning costs money and energy. Running more treatment steps raises the town's costs, and those costs can reach residents through their bills. A widely used guideline, built by adding two EPA benchmarks, treats combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden, and some families in town are already near that line. (Source: EPA Water Affordability Needs Assessment, 2024.)
  3. Cheaper options may come first. The town could fix leaks, add water-saving fixtures, and ask people to conserve before building an expensive plant. A fictional public works memo for this debate argues these steps could stretch the current supply for less money. (Illustrative memo created for this debate.)

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

Rubric
Criterion Emerging Developing Proficient Advanced
Evidence use Repeats a claim with no cited evidence Cites one piece of evidence without explaining its relevance Cites at least two pieces of evidence and explains how each supports the team's position Cites multiple pieces of evidence, explains their relevance, and separates sourced facts from illustrative material
Rebuttal quality Does not respond to the other team Responds to a point but adds no evidence Directly rebuts a specific point using evidence from the file Rebuts more than one point and explains why the team's evidence outweighs them
Organization & delivery Hard to follow; no clear structure Has a structure but unclear transitions Follows a clear claim, evidence, and conclusion order Clearly structured, confidently delivered, and directly responsive to the resolution

Differentiation

Support

Give each team a simplified evidence card listing only their single strongest point, and provide rebuttal sentence starters ("The other team says ___, but the evidence shows ___.").

Extension

Ask students to research, using only the evidence file provided, how the town might build public trust in a reuse plan, and to add that reasoning as a third argument that answers the trust concern directly.

ELL supports

Pre-teach "potable reuse," "drought," and "multi-barrier treatment" with a simple diagram of water moving through several cleaning steps back to a tap. Allow students to deliver their points from written notes rather than from memory.