Water for Schools
Menu

Debate kit Grade 10 Social Studies & Civics

Ludlow's PFAS Upgrade: Raising Rates Now or Waiting for Settlements

A grade 10 debate kit on whether the fictional Ludlow Water District should raise rates now for PFAS treatment or wait for manufacturer settlement money.

Objectives

  1. Students will construct arguments on both timing options for funding PFAS treatment, using named evidence.
  2. Students will deliver rebuttals that respond to a specific opposing point rather than restating their case.
  3. Students will distinguish documented regulatory facts from illustrative scenario figures in the file.

Vocabulary

PFAS
A large family of human-made chemicals used in things like nonstick pans, waterproof fabric, and firefighting foam. They are called forever chemicals because they take a very long time to break down.
Maximum contaminant level (MCL)
A maximum contaminant level, or MCL, is the highest amount of a certain substance that federal rules allow in drinking water. Water systems test regularly to prove their water stays under each limit.

Also: settlement, rate increase, compliance deadline

Teacher overview

This is a two-team structured debate run across two class periods: preparation and constructive speeches in the first, rebuttals and judging in the second. The resolution is genuinely contested because both sides want the same treatment plant built; they disagree about who should pay first and what waiting costs. Real utility boards have reached opposite conclusions on this timing question.

Ludlow's PFAS Upgrade: Raising Rates Now or Waiting for Settlements — Grade 10 Social Studies & Civics
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: "The Ludlow Water District should raise water rates now to build PFAS treatment, rather than wait for settlement money from PFAS manufacturers."

Background: PFAS are long-lasting manufactured chemicals. They have turned up in water supplies across the country. A federal rule finalized in April 2024 sets a limit of 4.0 parts per trillion each for PFOA and PFOS, the two most studied PFAS compounds. Water systems must meet it by April 2029, and the rule is still in motion: in May 2026, EPA proposed letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption, to April 2031. The limits would not change, and the proposal was not final as of September 2026. The fictional Ludlow Water District serves 9,000 households. It has measured PFOA above the federal limit in two of its five wells. Its engineer estimates a treatment upgrade at $12 million. The district could fund it by raising the typical bill by about $8 a month for 20 years. Makers of PFAS chemicals face lawsuits nationwide, and settlement funds may one day repay water systems. The timing and the amount any one district would receive are unknown. The district board must vote this year.

Roles: Assign an affirmative team (raise rates now), a negative team (wait for settlement money), a timekeeper, and a judging panel using the rubric. Speakers deliver a constructive argument, one rebuttal each, and a closing summary. Judges must cite the rubric language when scoring.

Evidence File

Case for raising rates now:

  1. Two of Ludlow's five wells exceed the federal limit of 4.0 parts per trillion for PFOA. Exposure continues while the district waits, and treatment is the step that changes what residents drink. (Source: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation; well results are part of this kit's fictional scenario.)
  2. The district engineer's report, written for this fictional scenario, says design and construction take about three years. A board that waits two years would finish around 2031, missing the April 2029 deadline and leaving no margin even if Ludlow applied for and received a two-year exemption to April 2031. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate.)
  3. Settlement money is uncertain in timing and amount. A district that builds now can still use settlement funds later to pay down debt and roll back rates. Building first does not give up repayment. (Reasoning from the kit's background; settlement uncertainty is stated there.)

Case for waiting for settlement money:

  1. A widely used rule of thumb, built from two EPA benchmarks, treats combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden. In this fictional district, an $8 monthly increase lands hardest on fixed-income households near that line. (Source: EPA affordability benchmarks and 2024 Water Affordability Needs Assessment; district figures are the kit's scenario.)
  2. The district's attorney, a fictional figure created for this debate, testifies that settlements could repay a large share of treatment costs. She warns that districts which pay alone may weaken the claim that the polluter should pay. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
  3. EPA itself has proposed letting eligible systems apply for a two-year exemption that would move their deadline from April 2029 to April 2031. That signals regulators know some systems need time, and if Ludlow qualifies, the extra years are the window in which the lawsuits could settle. (Source: EPA PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, proposed extension rule of May 2026, not final as of September 2026.)
  4. Ratepayers did not cause the contamination. The Ludlow Ratepayers Alliance, a fictional group created for this debate, argues that the district should not put the first bill on residents, and that doing so removes the financial pressure on the companies that made the chemicals to settle. (Illustrative testimony 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 Asserts claims without citing the file Cites one file item without explaining relevance Cites two or more file items and explains how each supports the position Cites multiple items, explains each, and correctly distinguishes documented facts from illustrative scenario figures
Rebuttal quality Does not respond to the opposing case Responds generally without naming a specific point Rebuts a specific opposing point using file evidence Rebuts multiple points and explains why the team's evidence outweighs them on health, cost, or timing
Organization & delivery Argument is hard to follow Structure present but transitions unclear Clear claim, evidence, and conclusion delivered within time Clear structure, confident delivery, and direct engagement with the resolution's timing question

Differentiation

Support

Give each team a one-page evidence card holding only its two strongest points, and provide rebuttal starters such as "Our opponents rely on ___, but the file shows ___." Allow constructives to be read from notes.

Extension

Ask advanced speakers to argue a middle position in a post-debate reflection: a smaller immediate increase paired with a binding promise to refund settlement proceeds, and to defend why the board should or should not accept the compromise.

ELL supports

Pre-teach "settlement," "compliance," and "parts per trillion" with a scale illustration and a simple timeline of rule, deadline, and proposed exemption. Permit rebuttals delivered from written notes and allow extra preparation time between speeches.