Writing prompt Grade 12 Health & Consumer Science
Should Merriton County Require Well Tests When Homes Are Sold?
A grade 12 health argument prompt: students decide whether a fictional county should require private well tests at every home sale, weighing health evidence and cost.
Objectives
- Students will explain why private well owners are responsible for their own water testing and why common well contaminants cannot be detected by taste, smell, or color.
- Students will write an argument that states a precise claim, develops and answers a counterclaim, and uses evidence from the background material.
- Students will weigh the health benefits of a testing requirement against its costs, its limits, and its effect on different groups of residents.
Vocabulary
- Coliform bacteria
- Coliform bacteria are common bacteria found in soil, on plants, and in the guts of animals. Most are harmless, but finding them in drinking water warns that germs may be getting in.
- Nitrate
- Nitrate is a form of nitrogen that plants use as food. It gets into water from fertilizer, animal waste, and septic systems, and too much of it is unhealthy for both people and streams.
Also: private well, ordinance, arsenic, point-of-sale testing, counterclaim
Teacher overview
Federal drinking water rules require public water systems to test their water on a regular schedule, yet those rules do not apply to private household wells. The owner of a private well decides whether and when to test, and many never do. In this prompt, students take a position on a proposed ordinance in fictional Merriton County that would require a basic water test whenever a home with a private well is sold. The background gives students real, qualitative information about well contaminants and fictional county data and testimony, so the essay can be written without outside research.
The misconception to address before drafting is that well water that looks, smells, and tastes fine must be safe. Bacteria, nitrate, and arsenic, the three contaminants in the proposed test, usually cannot be detected by the senses at all. Students also tend to treat the question as purely personal responsibility or purely public health; the strongest essays recognize that the ordinance helps some residents, such as buyers and future renters, while placing costs and limits on others, and they argue for a position with that tradeoff in view.
Prompt
Background.
Federal drinking water rules require public water systems to test their water on a regular schedule. Those rules do not apply to private household wells. A family that gets its water from a private well is responsible for testing it and for treating it if a problem is found.
Three contaminants are common concerns in private wells. Coliform bacteria can signal that sewage or animal waste is reaching the well, and some related germs cause stomach and intestinal illness. Nitrate comes mostly from fertilizer, manure, and septic systems, and it is especially dangerous for young infants because it reduces the blood's ability to carry oxygen. Arsenic occurs naturally in some rock and has been linked to cancer and other diseases after many years of drinking it. None of the three can reliably be seen, smelled, or tasted. The only way to know is a lab test.
The proposal. The fictional Merriton County Board of Health is considering an ordinance with these parts:
- When a home served by a private well is sold, the seller must pay for a test for coliform bacteria, nitrate, and arsenic at a state-certified lab before the sale closes.
- The results must be given to the buyer and filed with the county health department.
- The ordinance does not require any repair or treatment, even when a result is high.
Fictional county information.
- In our scenario, a county sampling program tested 400 household wells last year. Coliform bacteria were found in 72 wells, nitrate above the drinking water limit in 28, and arsenic above its limit in 18. Most of these owners said they had never tested their well before.
- A basic test for the three contaminants costs about $180 at a certified lab in the fictional county.
- About 6,000 homes in Merriton County use private wells, and about 250 of them are sold in a typical year.
Testimony at the fictional public hearing.
- A family physician: "I have treated infants whose parents had no idea their well was high in nitrate. A test at the time of sale reaches a family before a baby arrives, and it costs less than one emergency visit."
- A real estate agent: "Sellers already pay for many inspections. This adds cost and can delay a closing if the lab is slow. And a test at sale is a single snapshot. Wells should be tested every year, and this rule does nothing about that."
- A longtime well owner: "My family has drunk this water for forty years. I do not want my results sitting in a government file where anyone might see them."
- A public health nurse: "Renters and new buyers have no way to know what is in the water unless someone tests it. A rule at the time of sale is the one moment when we know a new household is moving in."
Writing task. Write an argument essay addressed to the Merriton County Board of Health that takes a clear position on whether the county should adopt the testing ordinance as written, adopt it with a specific change, or reject it. Develop the strongest counterclaim to your position fairly, answer it, and support your reasoning with evidence from the background. Your essay should be about 500 to 700 words.
Planning Organizer
| Part of the argument | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim: adopt as written, adopt with a specific change, or reject? | |
| Reason 1 and the evidence from the background that supports it | |
| Reason 2 and the evidence from the background that supports it | |
| Who benefits from your position, and who bears a cost? | |
| The strongest counterclaim, stated fairly in your own words | |
| Your response to the counterclaim, with evidence | |
| Conclusion: what the Board should do and why it matters for health |
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Exemplar & Rubric
Exemplar response:
The Merriton County Board of Health should adopt the proposed well testing ordinance, with one change: results should be filed with the county in a form that removes the owner's name and address. A test at the time of sale is a modest cost that catches serious, invisible health risks at the one moment when a new household, often with young children, is about to start drinking the water. The privacy change answers the most reasonable objection without weakening that protection.
The county's own data show that these risks are common. In the fictional sampling program, coliform bacteria turned up in 72 of 400 wells, which is nearly one in five. Nitrate was above the drinking water limit in 28 wells and arsenic in 18. Most of those owners had never tested. That last detail matters most, because none of these contaminants can be seen, smelled, or tasted. A family cannot protect itself from a risk it has no way to notice, and the federal rules that require testing for public water systems do not cover private wells. Right now, a buyer in Merriton County can move into a home, mix formula with the well water, and have no warning at all.
The timing of the test is also well chosen. As the public health nurse testified, the sale of a home is the one point when the county knows a new household is arriving. Nitrate is most dangerous for young infants, and arsenic causes harm over many years of drinking. Both risks fall hardest on a family that is just starting to use a well. The physician's point about cost is persuasive as well. A test that costs about $180 is small compared with the price of a home, and it is far smaller than the cost of an infant's hospital visit or of years of exposure to arsenic.
The strongest argument against the ordinance comes from the real estate agent, who pointed out that a test at the time of sale is only a snapshot, while wells should be tested every year. That is true, and the ordinance does not solve the whole problem. But a rule that catches problems once in each ownership is far better than the current situation, in which most owners have never tested at all. A first test also teaches new owners what their water contains and where to find a certified lab, which makes yearly testing more likely afterward. The concern about delayed closings can be handled by letting the test be ordered as soon as a home is listed.
The longtime owner's privacy concern deserves a direct answer, which is why I support the ordinance with one change. The county does not need names and addresses to track which areas have nitrate or arsenic problems. Filing results by neighborhood or road would let the health department plan outreach while keeping any single family's results out of a public file. The buyer, who is the person drinking the water next, would still receive the full report.
The Board should adopt the testing ordinance with a privacy change to how results are filed. The data show that contaminated wells are common, the contaminants are invisible, and the people most at risk are the new households the ordinance would reach. A one-time test at sale will not fix every well in Merriton County, but it will stop the county from handing new families a water supply that no one has ever checked.
Rubric:
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | No clear position, or the position changes during the essay. | States a position but not whether the ordinance should be adopted as written or changed. | States a precise position on the ordinance, including any specific change, and holds it throughout. | States a precise position and previews the reasoning so the Board knows what the essay will prove. |
| Evidence and health reasoning | Uses no evidence from the background, or misstates the health risks. | Uses one piece of evidence without explaining how it supports the claim. | Uses at least two pieces of evidence, such as the sampling results and the fact that contaminants cannot be detected by the senses, and explains the health link. | Uses several pieces of evidence, explains the specific health risks of nitrate, arsenic, or bacteria, and connects them to who is most at risk. |
| Counterclaim | No counterclaim is addressed. | Mentions an opposing view but does not answer it. | States a real counterclaim fairly and answers it with evidence or a specific change. | States the strongest counterclaim fairly, concedes what is true in it, and answers it in a way that strengthens the original claim. |
| Weighing benefits and costs | Does not consider who benefits or who bears a cost. | Mentions a cost or benefit without connecting it to specific residents. | Identifies who benefits and who bears the cost, and explains why the balance supports the claim. | Weighs benefits and costs for several groups, such as buyers, sellers, renters, and infants, and explains the tradeoff with precision. |
| Organization and conventions | Ideas are disconnected, and frequent errors interfere with meaning. | Some organization, with noticeable errors that do not block meaning. | Clear paragraphs with transitions and few errors. | Purposeful structure that builds toward the conclusion, with precise language and almost no errors. |
Differentiation
Support
Provide sentence starters for each organizer row, such as "The Board should ___ because ___." and "Some residents argue that ___. This concern is fair because ___, but ___." Allow students to write a four-paragraph essay with one reason paragraph instead of two, and pre-highlight the three most useful pieces of evidence in the background.
Extension
Ask students to write a second, shorter piece: an amendment to the ordinance, written in plain legal style, that addresses renters. They should decide whether landlords of homes with private wells should face a testing requirement, how often, and who should pay, and then add one paragraph to their essay defending the amendment against a likely objection.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "well," "ordinance," "bacteria," "nitrate," "arsenic," "seller," "buyer," and "privacy" with short definitions and a simple diagram of a house, its well, and a septic system. Allow students to complete the planning organizer in phrases or in their home language before drafting in English. Provide a paragraph frame for the counterclaim section: "Some people believe ___. This point is partly true because ___. However, ___."
Extensions
Have students find out whether their own state or county has any rule about testing private wells at the time of sale or rental, and summarize what it requires in two or three sentences. Students can then revise their conclusion to say whether the Merriton proposal is stronger or weaker than their own local rule.