Project Grade 10 Social Studies & Civics
Water Service for Tessary Hollow: A County Board Proposal
A five-session grade 10 project in which students map a fictional community on failing wells, cost three service options, and argue one to a county board.
Objectives
- Students will produce a two-layer map showing well conditions, the district boundary, and a proposed main route.
- Students will compute a monthly household charge for three service options under a grant and a rate cap.
- Students will write and present a proposal that recommends one option and answers the strongest objection to it.
Vocabulary
Key words: service extension, private well, capital cost, marginal cost, grant, rate cap, point-of-use treatment
Teacher overview
Roughly one household in ten in the United States draws its water from a private well that no agency routinely tests, and when those wells begin to fail, the question of who extends service to them lands on a county board rather than on a utility. This project puts students in front of that decision for the fictional community of Tessary Hollow, where three technically sound options carry very different monthly costs and very different levels of protection. Students map the community, cost each option against a grant and a rate cap, analyze what it costs to reach the last few outlying homes, and deliver a written proposal and presentation to a panel acting as the county board. The driving question is who should receive public water service and what a county should be willing to spend per household to provide it.
Project Brief
The scenario. Tessary Hollow is a fictional unincorporated community of 140 households in Braycombe County. Every household draws water from a private well. County sampling last year tested 118 of those wells, and 31 came back above the county's advisory level for nitrate. Several households on Farrow Ridge Road have also reported wells going dry in late summer. The nearest main of the Elmvale Water District ends 4.2 miles from the edge of the Hollow.
Your client. You are a consulting team hired by the Braycombe County Board. The board will vote on one option and wants a written proposal and a ten-minute presentation from each team.
The constraints. The county holds $900,000 in state grant money that may be applied to capital costs only, and never to more than the actual capital cost of the option chosen. Whatever capital the grant does not cover is repaid evenly over 20 years through a monthly charge on each of the 140 households. The board has stated it will not approve a total monthly household charge above $95.
The three options.
| Option | Capital cost | Recurring cost |
|---|---|---|
| A. Extend the Elmvale main 4.2 miles and connect all 140 homes | $1,900,000 | $46 per household per month, billed by Elmvale |
| B. Build a community well, treatment building, and local distribution for all 140 homes | $1,150,000 | $8,900 per month for the whole system, covering staff, power, testing, and chemicals |
| C. Install a point-of-use treatment unit in each of the 140 homes | $2,400 per household installed | $340 per household per year for cartridges and service |
The outlying homes. Twenty-two of the 140 households sit along Farrow Ridge Road, more than a mile beyond the rest of the community. The capital costs for Options A and B in the table already include $310,000 for reaching them. A hybrid is allowed: serve the other 118 households with a main and give the 22 outlying households point-of-use units instead.
What you turn in. A proposal of 900 to 1,200 words, a map, a completed cost table for all three options, and a one-page memo on the outlying homes. The proposal must recommend exactly one option or the hybrid, must show that the recommended option meets the board's monthly charge limit, and must answer the strongest objection to it.
Milestones
- Session 1, map the community. Produce a map with two layers: the 140 households with the 31 wells above the advisory level marked, and the Elmvale district boundary with the 4.2-mile main route and the Farrow Ridge spur drawn on it. Graph paper with a stated scale is acceptable, and a free web mapping tool is preferred. Checkable output: a labeled map with a scale, a legend, and both layers present.
- Session 2, cost the options. Complete the cost table for all three options. For each, show the capital cost, the grant applied, the amount repaid over 20 years, the monthly capital charge per household, the monthly recurring charge per household, and the total monthly charge. Checkable output: a completed table with every total monthly charge compared against the board's limit.
- Session 3, the last twenty-two homes. Using the $310,000 figure, compute what serving the Farrow Ridge households adds to the monthly charge, both when spread across all 140 households and when charged only to the 22. Checkable output: a one-page memo giving both figures and recommending for or against the hybrid.
- Session 4, draft the proposal. Write the full proposal: claim, the map and cost evidence supporting it, the strongest objection stated fairly, your rebuttal, and a closing recommendation. Checkable output: a complete draft, not an outline.
- Session 5, present and submit. Deliver a ten-minute presentation to a panel acting as the county board, take three questions, and submit the final packet with the proposal, map, cost table, and memo. Checkable output: the presentation delivered and the packet submitted.
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Rubric
Teacher reference. Under the figures in the brief, Option A comes to roughly $76 a month per household, Option B to roughly $71, and Option C to roughly $28, so all three clear the board's limit and the argument turns on reliability, oversight, and fire protection rather than on cost alone. Teams that treat the cheapest option as automatically correct should be pressed on who tests a point-of-use unit and who replaces it when a household stops paying attention.
| Criterion | Advanced | Proficient | Developing | Emerging |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Map and spatial evidence | Both layers are accurate, scaled, and legended, and the proposal points to specific map features to justify the route or the hybrid | Both layers are present and readable, with a scale and legend, and the map is referenced in the proposal | One layer is present or the scale or legend is missing, and the map is not used as evidence | The map is incomplete, unlabeled, or absent |
| Cost analysis and constraints | All three options are costed correctly, the grant and the 20-year repayment are applied properly, and the monthly charge is compared to the board's limit for each | All three options are costed with at most one arithmetic slip, and the recommended option is checked against the limit | One option is missing or the grant or repayment is misapplied in more than one place | Costs are incomplete, or the board's limit is never checked |
| Argument and counterclaim | The claim is specific, evidence from the table and map is tied directly to it, and the strongest objection is stated fairly and answered with evidence | A clear claim is supported by evidence and an objection is stated and answered | A claim is present but evidence is thin, or the objection is stated without a rebuttal | No clear claim, or no objection is acknowledged |
| Presentation and questions | The ten minutes are used well, every figure cited is accurate, and answers to board questions add reasoning rather than repeating the proposal | The presentation covers claim, evidence, and recommendation within time, and questions are answered adequately | The presentation runs long or short, or answers to questions restate the proposal without addressing what was asked | The presentation is incomplete or the team cannot answer questions about its own figures |
Differentiation
Support
Give these students the completed cost line for Option A in the fictional scenario, with each step labeled, so they have a model before costing Options B and C. Provide the map base already drawn with the district boundary and road network in place, leaving them to add the household layer and the route.
Extension
Ask students to add a fourth option of their own design, such as connecting only the households whose wells failed and revisiting the rest in five years, cost it under the same rules, and explain in the proposal why the board should or should not treat a partial solution as acceptable.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "capital cost," "recurring cost," "grant," and "rate cap" with a two-column chart separating money paid once from money paid every month. Provide the proposal structure as a labeled outline with one sentence frame per section, and allow the presentation to be delivered from written notes.