Debate kit Grade 11 Social Studies & Civics
Relicense or Remove the Kilnwood Dam: A Grade 11 Debate Kit
A grade 11 debate on whether a fictional river commission should support a new license for an aging hydropower dam or fund its removal, with two-sided evidence.
Objectives
- Students will construct an argument on dam relicensing using evidence and stated criteria.
- Students will answer a counterclaim with evidence rather than restating their own position.
- Students will weigh marginal costs and benefits when two options both carry large price tags.
Vocabulary
Key words: relicensing, fish passage, sediment load, run-of-river, decommissioning
Teacher overview
This kit runs as a two-team hearing before a three-member commission panel, spread across two class periods with preparation in the first and the hearing in the second. Non-federal hydropower dams hold licenses that expire, and relicensing forces a public decision about whether an old dam is still worth its conditions. The resolution is genuinely contested because both options in this fictional case cost a great deal of money, and each one protects something real while giving up something else.
Resolution & Background
Resolution: The Bircham River Commission should fund removal of the Kilnwood Dam rather than support a new operating license for it.
Background. The Kilnwood Dam, a fictional dam, sits on the Bircham River above the town of Bircham Falls. It was built in 1931 and has generated power ever since. Its federal license expires next year, and the owner has applied for a new one. In a relicensing, federal and state agencies may attach conditions, and fish and wildlife agencies often require passage for migrating fish.
The dam has a capacity of 14 megawatts and supplies power the utility sells to roughly 9,000 homes. Its reservoir covers 640 acres. A marina, a campground, and three lakeside businesses depend on that reservoir. An irrigation district draws from the reservoir to serve 4,200 acres of orchards. The dam also holds back an estimated 1.4 million cubic yards of sediment.
The state fisheries agency has told the commission it will require fish passage as a license condition. The owner estimates the retrofit at $31 million. A regional conservation group estimates removal, sediment management, and channel restoration at $22 million, and the state has a restoration fund that could carry part of that cost. Both figures were prepared for this debate and are not documented amounts.
Roles. Two teams of four argue the resolution. Three students serve as commissioners and question both teams. One student moderates and keeps time. Remaining students take stakeholder roles for public comment: a marina owner, an orchard grower, a fisheries biologist, a utility rate analyst, and a resident of Bircham Falls. Commissioners vote at the end and each states one reason for the record.
Evidence File
Case for removal.
- The license condition drives the cost. The fisheries agency will require passage, so the choice is not between removal and the status quo. It is between $31 million for a retrofit and $22 million for removal, in figures prepared for this debate. (Fictional commission staff summary.)
- The dam supplies 14 megawatts, a small amount next to a major federal project. Hoover Dam's power plant has a capacity of about 2,080 megawatts. Replacing Kilnwood's output is a smaller problem than paying for its retrofit. (Source: US Bureau of Reclamation, for the Hoover figure.)
- A removed dam needs no operator, no spillway inspection, and no relicensing in another forty years. The fictional utility rate analyst estimates that annual operating and compliance costs would end entirely. (Fictional testimony prepared for this debate.)
- Opening the river restores migration to spawning reaches above the dam. The fictional state fisheries biologist testifies that passage structures move a fraction of the fish a free river moves, and that they require maintenance for as long as they exist. (Fictional testimony.)
- Sediment released during a managed removal settles over a few seasons, while sediment trapped behind an aging dam is a permanent liability that grows each year. (Fictional commission staff summary.)
Case for relicensing.
- Removal ends the irrigation supply for 4,200 acres of orchards. The fictional orchard grower testifies that a run-of-river intake would need new pumps and new water rights, and that no funding source has been identified. (Fictional testimony prepared for this debate.)
- The reservoir is the economic base for a marina, a campground, and three businesses. The fictional marina owner testifies that those jobs disappear with the water, and that restoration jobs are temporary. (Fictional testimony.)
- Hydropower produces electricity without burning fuel. Retiring 14 megawatts means the utility buys replacement power somewhere, and the fictional rate analyst notes that the replacement may not be cleaner. (Fictional testimony.)
- The $22 million removal estimate excludes the cost of a new irrigation intake and of any downstream damage from released sediment. A cost comparison that leaves out those items understates removal. (Fictional commission staff summary.)
- The dam is part of the town's history and its identity, and the reservoir shoreline is where residents fish, swim, and hold the town's summer events. The fictional resident's testimony asks the commission to weigh that alongside the money. (Fictional testimony.)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use of evidence | Asserts a position with no evidence from the file | Cites one item without explaining what it proves | Cites two or more items and explains what each one establishes | Cites multiple items, explains each, and distinguishes fictional testimony from documented figures |
| Answering counterclaims | Ignores the opposing case | Names an opposing point but restates the team's own position | Answers a specific opposing point with evidence | Answers several opposing points and explains why the team's evidence carries more weight |
| Cost reasoning | Treats one large number as decisive | Compares the two totals without noting what each includes | Compares the two options at the margin, noting what each estimate leaves out | Builds a marginal argument and identifies the additional information the commission would need |
| Hearing conduct | Speaks out of turn or over time with no structure | Follows the format but the argument is hard to track | Keeps to time, follows the format, and organizes the argument clearly | Keeps to time, responds directly to commissioner questions, and adapts the case as the hearing develops |
Differentiation
Support
Give each team a one-page card carrying its two strongest points with the evidence already matched to each, and provide rebuttal starters such as "The other team says ___, but the file shows ___." Allow supported students to deliver public comment in a stakeholder role rather than argue a full round.
Extension
Have students write the commission's written decision, including a condition attached to whichever outcome wins, and explain which testimony the condition responds to.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "relicensing," "fish passage," "sediment," and "decommissioning" with a labeled sketch of a dam showing the reservoir, the spillway, and the sediment behind the dam. Allow students to read prepared statements from notes and provide a written glossary at each team's table.
Extensions
Students research one real dam removal or relicensing decision from a state agency or federal commission website, then report which arguments in this fictional evidence file appeared in that real case and which did not.