Drafting the Amber River Compact: A Grade 11 Water Law Simulation

Hook (5 min): Project or sketch a simple map showing the fictional Amber River flowing from the upstream State of Piedmont into the downstream State of Lowland. Ask students: if you represented Piedmont, would you feel obligated to leave water in the river for a state whose voters cannot vote in your elections? Take a quick show of hands and record initial opinions on the board without comment.

Direct instruction (10 min): Explain that when a river crosses a state line, neither state can regulate the whole river alone, which is why states sharing a river have repeatedly negotiated interstate compacts, agreements approved by both state legislatures and, in most cases, by Congress, to divide the river's flow. Present the Amber River Compact background: the river's fictional average annual flow is 1,000,000 acre-feet, Piedmont's existing farms and cities already use an amount equal to about 700,000 acre-feet a year, and Lowland's downstream cities and wetlands need at least 450,000 acre-feet a year to stay healthy. Point out that Piedmont's use plus Lowland's minimum need adds up to more water than the river actually carries, which is exactly why a negotiated compact, rather than each state simply acting alone, becomes necessary.

Team preparation (15 min): Divide the class into pairs of negotiating teams, one Piedmont team and one Lowland team per pair, four to six students per team. Each team reads its role card, which the teacher writes from the background figures above: its state's water needs (Piedmont's 700,000 acre-feet of current use for farms and cities, or Lowland's 450,000-acre-foot minimum for cities and wetlands), its economic priorities, and the share of the river those needs represent, stated as a percentage. Before drafting an opening proposal, each team completes a short calculation check:

1. What is 70 percent of the river's 1,000,000-acre-foot flow, the amount Piedmont's current water use represents?
2. What is 45 percent of the river's 1,000,000-acre-foot flow, the minimum share Lowland's downstream cities and wetlands need?
3. If both states received their full request, how many acre-feet beyond the river's actual flow would that require?
4. If teams instead agreed on a 55 percent Piedmont, 45 percent Lowland split, how many acre-feet would each state receive?

Teams then draft their opening proposal, expressed as a percentage split of the river's flow, and calculate how many acre-feet that percentage represents for their own state.

Negotiation session (15 min): Each Piedmont-Lowland pair holds a structured negotiation: Piedmont's team presents its opening proposal and rationale, Lowland's team responds and presents a counterproposal, and each side gets one rebuttal before proposing a final compromise split. Teams record their final agreed percentage split and its acre-foot equivalent on a shared negotiation sheet. Circulate among the pairs to make sure every team reaches a number, even when the negotiation grows contentious.

Ratification vote and debrief (10 min): Each pair reports its final compromise split to the class, and the class votes to ratify or reject each pair's compact. As a formative check, ask every student to write on an index card whether their team's compact treats both states' needs as legitimate and why, then collect the cards and scan for reasoning that references both states rather than only one. Close by asking two or three pairs to explain what made their negotiation difficult.