Writing prompt Grade 11 Social Studies & Civics
Funding Water Infrastructure: A New Deal-Scale Argument Prompt
A grade 11 argument prompt where students take a position on federal water-infrastructure funding, using Hoover Dam and ASCE infrastructure-grade data as evidence.
Objectives
- Students will write an argument essay that states a claim, addresses a counterclaim, and supports both with evidence from real infrastructure data.
- Students will evaluate a federal spending proposal by weighing its costs and benefits for different groups.
Vocabulary
- Dam
- A strong wall built across a river to hold back water. Dams store water for people and farms, help prevent floods, and can make electricity.
- Infrastructure funding gap
- The difference between the money needed to fix and replace the country's water systems and the money actually being spent on them.
- Infrastructure Report Card
- A report from the country's civil engineers that gives grades to roads, bridges, and water systems, just like a school report card. Water's grades have been low.
Teacher overview
During the Great Depression, the federal government funded large public-works water projects. Hoover Dam, authorized in 1928 and begun in 1931, was completed in 1936, during the New Deal. Today, the country's water systems face a different kind of strain: aging pipes, treatment plants built decades ago, and a widely cited infrastructure investment gap. This prompt asks students to take a position on whether Congress should fund a water-infrastructure program on a similar scale today, using real historical and current figures as evidence.
Prompt
Background. In the 1930s, the federal government answered the Great Depression partly by funding major public-works water projects. Hoover Dam was built in that era. Its power plant still runs, with a nameplate capacity of about 2,080 megawatts, although the Bureau of Reclamation reports that years of drought and low water in Lake Mead have cut its power generation by about 30 percent. The dam still supplies water storage across the Southwest. Supporters of federal public works point to the dam as evidence that a coordinated federal project can deliver infrastructure that lasts for generations. The picture today is different. The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the nation's drinking water systems a grade of C- and its wastewater systems a grade of D+ in its most recent infrastructure report card. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that $625 billion in drinking-water infrastructure investment is needed over the next 20 years. Aging distribution pipes account for about two-thirds of that total. Somewhere in the United States, a water main breaks roughly every two minutes. Critics of a large federal program point out that water systems have traditionally been owned and run locally and paid for mostly through customer rates, that a program of this size would add to federal spending or debt, and that federal money often comes with conditions that limit local control.
Writing task. Some members of Congress have proposed a new federal water-infrastructure program on the scale of the New Deal's water projects. It would take on the nation's aging pipes and treatment plants. Write an argument essay that states a clear claim on whether Congress should fund such a program. Address at least one counterclaim a critic might raise about federal spending, or about the proper role of state and local government. Support your position with evidence from the background material above.
Planning Organizer
| Category | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim (should Congress fund the program?) | |
| Reason 1 + evidence from background material | |
| Reason 2 + evidence from background material | |
| Counterclaim a critic might raise | |
| Your rebuttal to the counterclaim | |
| Concluding statement |
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 federal government should fund a new, large-scale water infrastructure program modeled on the New Deal's public works projects, because the country's water systems are deteriorating faster than states and cities can afford to repair them on their own. The scale of the current problem justifies a scale of response last seen in the 1930s. When the federal government built Hoover Dam during the Great Depression, it created a power plant now rated at about 2,080 megawatts and a reliable water supply that reshaped the American Southwest for generations, proving that a coordinated national project can deliver infrastructure no single state could finance alone. The nation faces a comparable challenge today: the American Society of Civil Engineers currently rates the nation's drinking water systems a C- and its wastewater systems a D+, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that $625 billion in drinking-water investment is needed over the next 20 years, with aging distribution pipes responsible for about two-thirds of that total. A water main breaks somewhere in the country roughly every two minutes, a rate of failure that reflects decades of deferred maintenance rather than a temporary shortfall.
Some critics will argue that a New Deal-scale program is fiscally irresponsible, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to federal spending and expanding the government's role in what has traditionally been local infrastructure. This concern deserves a serious response rather than dismissal, since water utilities are usually owned and financed locally for good reason: local operators understand their own systems best. Yet the scale of the $625 billion shortfall exceeds what most municipal budgets and state revolving funds can close on their own, particularly in smaller and lower-income communities that cannot spread costs across a large ratepayer base the way major cities can. A federal program does not need to replace local control; it can instead provide the capital that local utilities lack, much as New Deal programs built dams and treatment plants that local governments then operated themselves. Treating the investment as a one-time capital infusion, rather than permanent federal ownership, addresses the core of the fiscal objection.
Congress should fund a New Deal-scale water infrastructure program, because the country's pipes and treatment plants are failing at a rate and a cost that no other level of government can address alone, and the historical precedent of Hoover Dam shows that a coordinated federal investment can deliver water infrastructure whose benefits last for generations.
Rubric:
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | No clear position stated | States a position but it shifts or is vague | States one clear, consistent position | States a clear position and previews the essay's supporting reasoning |
| Evidence & reasoning | No evidence from background material | Restates one figure without explaining its relevance | Uses at least one specific figure and explains how it supports the claim | Uses two or more specific figures with quantitative precision and explains how each supports the claim |
| Counterclaim & rebuttal | No counterclaim addressed | Mentions an opposing view without a rebuttal | States a counterclaim and offers a rebuttal | States a counterclaim, rebuts it specifically, and ties the rebuttal back to the claim |
| Organization & conventions | Ideas are disconnected; frequent errors interfere with meaning | Some organization; errors are noticeable but do not block meaning | Clear paragraph structure; few errors | Clear, purposeful structure with a strong concluding statement; virtually error-free |
Differentiation
Support (below grade level)
Provide sentence starters for each Planning Organizer row ("Congress should/should not fund this program because the background material shows ___.") and allow the counterclaim and rebuttal to be combined into a single simpler sentence.
Extension (above grade level)
Ask students to research, using an additional source the teacher provides or approves, how a state revolving fund differs from a one-time federal grant program, since this distinction is not covered in the background material above, and add a second counterclaim addressing which funding mechanism critics might prefer instead.
ELL supports
Pre-teach infrastructure, counterclaim, and investment gap with a simple visual (a decades-old pipe next to a new one) before the writing task. Allow the Planning Organizer to be completed with phrases rather than full sentences before drafting begins.