Should Kinsley Ban Water Shutoffs? A Grade 12 Debate Kit

Resolution: "The fictional city of Kinsley should be prohibited from shutting off residential water service for unpaid bills."

Background: When a household falls behind on its water bill, most utilities can eventually disconnect service until the bill is paid, the way a power company might. A shutoff moratorium is a rule that forbids this, at least for homes. Supporters say water is different from other services because a home without running water quickly becomes unsafe and unsanitary. Opponents say a utility still has to cover its costs, and that if unpaid bills grow, the shortfall lands on paying customers or on the system's ability to maintain safe water. Kinsley's council must decide. For this debate, assign two teams, an affirmative team arguing for the ban and a negative team arguing against it, plus two student judges who score using the rubric. Each team should prepare an opening statement, at least one rebuttal, and a closing.

Case for the shutoff ban (affirmative):

1. Water is necessary for drinking, cooking, hand-washing, and flushing waste, so a home without service can become a health hazard within days, and the risk falls hardest on children, seniors, and people with medical conditions. (Source: general public-health reasoning; no disputed figure.)
2. When water costs climb, low-income households are hit first. A widely used rule of thumb, built by adding two EPA benchmarks, treats combined water and sewer costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden, and households already at that line are the ones most likely to fall behind and face a shutoff. EPA itself has no single official cutoff, and its 2024 affordability assessment used both 3 percent and 4.5 percent. (Source: EPA Water Affordability Needs Assessment, December 2024.)
3. A shutoff can cost the public more than it saves. In the fictional city of Kinsley, a proposal for this debate estimates that emergency shelter, health care, and child-welfare responses tied to families losing water would cost the city more than the unpaid bills themselves. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate, not a documented figure.)
4. Assistance and payment plans can recover much of what is owed without cutting anyone off, so a ban does not have to mean the utility simply loses the money.

Case against the shutoff ban (negative):

1. A utility must recover its costs to keep delivering safe water, because treatment chemicals, testing, staff, and pipe repairs all have to be paid for whether or not every customer pays. If no one can be disconnected, the incentive to pay weakens.
2. When some customers do not pay and cannot be cut off, the cost does not disappear; it shifts to everyone else through higher rates, a cross-subsidy in which paying households, including many with modest incomes, cover the unpaid bills of others.
3. A blanket ban can create a moral hazard, meaning even households that could pay may stop, since nonpayment carries no consequence. A fictional Kinsley ratepayer group argues in testimony written for this debate that targeted help for those truly in need would be fairer than a ban that covers everyone. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
4. There are narrower tools than a permanent ban, such as seasonal limits on shutoffs during extreme heat or cold, or required payment plans before disconnection, which protect health without ending cost recovery entirely.