Writing prompt Grade 12 Social Studies & Civics
Should Marchant Require a 100-Year Water Supply for New Homes?
A grade 12 argument prompt on whether a fictional desert city should require proof of a 100-year water supply before new subdivisions can be approved and sold.
Objectives
- Students will write an argument that states a claim about a water-supply requirement and defends it with evidence.
- Students will address a counterclaim about housing cost and rebut it with reasoning drawn from the background.
- Students will use the household demand figures in the background to describe the scale of a proposed subdivision's water demand.
Vocabulary
Key words: assured supply, subdivision, aquifer decline, counterclaim, moratorium
Teacher overview
Several arid states require a developer to prove a long-term water supply before lots in a new subdivision can be sold, which turns a hydrology question into a growth-policy question. This prompt places that decision in the fictional city of Marchant and asks students to argue for or against endorsing a statewide rule. The background supplies the demand arithmetic students need, so the essay can be drafted without outside research. The strongest objection to the rule is that it shifts growth to neighboring towns rather than stopping it, and the exemplar answers that objection directly.
Prompt
Background. Marchant is a fictional desert city of about 90,000 residents. It pumps most of its drinking water from an aquifer beneath the valley floor and buys a small amount from a regional pipeline. In our scenario, the city's monitoring wells show the aquifer dropping about 2 feet each year, and the utility estimates that current supplies would serve current demand for roughly 60 more years.
A bill before the state legislature would require the developer of any new subdivision to prove a 100-year assured water supply before lots may be sold. The city utility would review the proof and certify it. Marchant's council will vote on whether to endorse the bill.
Two figures matter for the arithmetic. The average US household uses about 300 gallons of water per day, roughly 70 percent of it indoors, according to EPA WaterSense. A developer has applied to build 1,200 homes on the city's north edge, so that subdivision alone would add about 360,000 gallons of demand per day.
Supporters of the bill argue that selling a house is a promise of water for the life of the house, and that a buyer cannot inspect an aquifer the way a buyer inspects a roof. They note that when supplies fail, the cost falls on everyone, because the city must then buy expensive replacement water or restrict use citywide.
Opponents argue that the rule adds cost and delay to every project, that 100 years is far longer than any utility can forecast honestly, and that growth blocked in Marchant will simply move to nearby towns with no such rule and often less water. They also point out that current residents pump from the same aquifer without proving anything.
Writing task. Write an argument essay of four to six paragraphs stating whether Marchant's council should endorse the 100-year assured supply rule. Support your claim with at least two specific pieces of evidence from the background above, including at least one figure. Address one counterclaim a reasonable opponent would raise, rebut it, and close with a clear concluding statement.
Planning Organizer
| Category | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim: should Marchant endorse the rule? | |
| Reason 1, with evidence from the background | |
| Reason 2, with evidence from the background | |
| The figure you will use, and what it shows | |
| Strongest counterclaim an opponent would raise | |
| Your rebuttal to that 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:
Marchant's council should endorse the 100-year assured supply rule, because the city is currently selling permanent housing against a supply it knows is shrinking. The utility's own monitoring shows the aquifer dropping about 2 feet each year, and its estimate of 60 more years at current demand assumes that demand stays where it is. That assumption is already failing. A single pending subdivision of 1,200 homes would add roughly 360,000 gallons of demand per day, using the EPA WaterSense figure of about 300 gallons per household per day. Approving houses faster than the aquifer can support them does not create water; it only decides who runs short first.
The rule also fixes a problem the housing market cannot solve on its own. A buyer can hire an inspector to examine a roof, a foundation, or a furnace, yet no inspection reveals whether the water beneath a subdivision will last as long as the mortgage. The developer who builds and sells the lots is gone long before the shortage arrives, while the buyer, the utility, and every other ratepayer are still there. Requiring proof of supply before sale places the burden on the party that is actually in a position to evaluate it.
Opponents raise a serious objection, which is that Marchant cannot stop growth by refusing it. If the council endorses the rule, a developer denied here can build in a neighboring town that has no such requirement and, in many cases, less water than Marchant has. On that view the rule exports the problem instead of solving it, while raising housing costs for the families who most need a place to live.
That objection argues for a statewide rule rather than against the rule itself, which is exactly what the bill before the legislature would create. A city acting alone would face the leakage opponents describe, yet the bill sets the same requirement for every town in the state, so a developer gains nothing by moving a project across a county line. The cost concern deserves a direct answer as well. Proving a supply does add expense to a project, and that expense is real, yet it is smaller and more predictable than the cost of importing emergency water or imposing citywide restrictions after thousands of homes are already occupied.
Marchant's council should endorse the bill. The city's own numbers show a supply that is declining while demand grows, the buyers who bear the risk have no practical way to measure it, and the statewide design of the bill answers the strongest objection against it. A rule that forces the question before the lots are sold is far easier to live with than a shortage discovered afterward.
Rubric:
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | No clear position on the rule | States a position that shifts or stays vague | States one clear position and holds it throughout | States a clear position and previews the line of reasoning that follows |
| Evidence and reasoning | Uses no evidence from the background | Restates one detail without explaining its relevance | Uses at least two details, including one figure, and explains how each supports the claim | Uses multiple details and figures, explains each, and shows how they fit together into one argument |
| Counterclaim and rebuttal | No opposing view appears | Mentions an opposing view without answering it | States a counterclaim fairly and answers it with reasoning | States the strongest counterclaim, answers it specifically, and concedes what is legitimate in it |
| Organization and conventions | Ideas are disconnected and errors interfere with meaning | Some structure is present and errors are noticeable | Clear paragraphs, purposeful transitions, and few errors | Tight structure, controlled transitions, a strong close, and virtually no errors |
Differentiation
Support
Give these students the organizer with the claim row already framed as a choice to circle and with two evidence options listed for each reason row, so drafting begins from selection rather than from a blank page. Allow the counterclaim and rebuttal to occupy one paragraph rather than two.
Extension
Ask students to rewrite the closing paragraph as testimony delivered to a legislative committee in ninety seconds, keeping the claim and the strongest evidence while dropping everything a listener could not follow by ear.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "assured supply," "subdivision," "aquifer," and "counterclaim" with a cross-section sketch showing homes above a falling water table. Permit the organizer to be completed in phrases, and provide the frames "Opponents argue that ___" and "That objection is weaker than it appears because ___" for the counterclaim paragraph.