Water for Schools
Menu

Debate kit Grade 6 Social Studies & Civics

Should Brookhaven Raise Water Rates to Replace Aging Water Mains?

A grade 6 debate kit on a fictional city raising water rates to replace aging cast-iron mains, with two-sided evidence on infrastructure need and household affordability.

Objectives

  1. Students will evaluate evidence on both sides of a water-rate infrastructure policy resolution.
  2. Students will construct and deliver a rebuttal supported by named evidence from the Evidence File.

Vocabulary

Water main break
When an underground water pipe cracks or bursts, sending water into streets and sometimes leaving homes without water. A water main breaks somewhere in the United States about every two minutes.
Rate case
The public process a utility goes through to change what it charges for water. Officials review the utility's costs, and customers can speak up before new rates are approved.
Water affordability
Whether families can pay their water and sewer bills without giving up other basics. Utilities and governments watch affordability closely as bills rise.
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.

Teacher overview

This is a two-team structured debate for a class period, with a second session available for extra preparation or a second round. Students argue for or against the fictional city of Brookhaven raising water rates specifically to replace its oldest cast-iron water mains, a resolution with genuine tension between an aging pipe network and household budgets that are already stretched.

Should Brookhaven Raise Water Rates to Replace Aging Water Mains? — Grade 6 Social Studies & Civics
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: "The city of Brookhaven should raise water rates to fund faster replacement of its aging cast-iron water mains, even though the increase will raise every household's bill."

Background: A water main is a large underground pipe. Mains carry treated water from a treatment plant under the streets, and smaller service lines connect each main to the homes and businesses along it. Across the United States, a water main breaks somewhere roughly every two minutes. Older cast-iron pipes, like many of Brookhaven's, are among the most likely to fail.

Water systems usually pay to replace mains out of the rates they charge households. For most systems, rates are the main source of money they have. Household bills have already been going up. National data show that combined water and sewer bills rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024. They rose another 5.1 percent in 2025. Both increases were faster than general inflation. A common rule of thumb also sets a warning line for what a family should have to pay. It treats a combined water and sewer bill above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden. The number comes from adding two EPA guides: 2.5 percent for drinking water and 2 percent for wastewater. The EPA itself has no single official cutoff. Some Brookhaven homes are already near that line.

Evidence File

Case for the rate increase:

  1. A water main breaks somewhere in the United States roughly every two minutes. Brookhaven's own cast-iron mains were laid decades ago. They are exactly the type of aging pipe most likely to fail next. (Source: ASCE Report Card talking points.)

  2. The nation's drinking-water systems need about $625 billion in infrastructure investment over the next 20 years. Distribution pipes like Brookhaven's mains are roughly two-thirds of that need. Towns across the country face the same repairs. This is more than a local expense. (Source: EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment.)

  3. The 2025 ASCE Infrastructure Report Card gave the nation's drinking-water systems a grade of only C-. That grade is a sign that many pipe networks are long overdue for real work. Systems like Brookhaven's are among them. (Source: ASCE 2025 Report Card for America's Infrastructure.)

  4. Right now Brookhaven fixes only the mains that break. A fictional Public Works memo written for this debate asks what that pace would mean. At that pace, replacing all of the oldest cast-iron pipe would take about 40 years. A program paid for by higher rates could cut that down to about 15 years. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate, not a documented figure.)

Case against the rate increase:

  1. A common rule of thumb, built from two EPA guides, sets a warning line at roughly 4.5 percent of household income. A combined water and sewer bill above that line counts as a high burden. In a 2024 study, the EPA used this line and a lower 3 percent line to count households with a high burden. A new increase would push more Brookhaven households past it. The council should be careful. (Source: EPA Water Affordability Needs Assessment, December 2024.)

  2. Combined water and sewer bills nationally rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024. They rose another 5.1 percent in 2025 alone. Both increases were faster than general inflation. Families had already taken on those raises before anyone proposed this one. (Source: Bluefield Research / industry rate surveys.)

  3. The Elm and Birch Residents Council is a fictional Brookhaven neighborhood group. Its testimony was written for this debate. The group argues that the city should apply for state or federal grants before it raises local rates. National data already show that many towns need the same pipe work. This is not a Brookhaven-only problem. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)

  4. In any single year, fixing only the mains that break costs the city less than a full replacement program. Brookhaven's council also has other pressing budget needs. They all compete for the same limited dollars.

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
Evidence use Repeats a claim with no cited evidence Cites one piece of evidence without explaining its relevance Cites at least two pieces of evidence and explains how each supports the team's position Cites multiple pieces of evidence, explains their relevance, and anticipates the opposing side's likely response
Rebuttal quality Does not respond to the opposing team's points Responds to an opposing point but without new evidence Directly rebuts a specific opposing point using evidence from the file Rebuts multiple opposing points and explains why the team's evidence outweighs them
Organization & delivery Argument is difficult to follow; no clear structure Argument has a structure but transitions are unclear Argument follows a clear claim-evidence-conclusion structure Argument is clearly structured, confidently delivered, and directly responsive to the resolution

Differentiation

Support (below grade level)

Provide a simplified evidence card for each side listing only its single strongest point, and give sentence starters for rebuttals ("Our opponents claim ___, but the evidence shows ___.").

Extension (above grade level)

Ask students to reason, using only the Evidence File, about what a state or federal infrastructure grant like the ones suggested in the "against" case might require a city to do to qualify, and to incorporate that reasoning into a stronger rebuttal.

ELL supports

Pre-teach water main, rate, affordability, and infrastructure with simple definitions and a labeled diagram showing a water main running from a treatment plant under a street to several houses. Allow students to deliver rebuttals from written notes rather than extemporaneously.