Writing prompt Grade 9 Social Studies & Civics
Should Halstead Ban Water Shutoffs for Unpaid Bills?
Grade 9 argument prompt on whether a fictional city should stop shutting off water for unpaid bills, using real affordability and rate-trend figures as evidence.
Objectives
- Students will write an argument essay that states a claim, addresses a counterclaim, and supports both with evidence.
- Students will use affordability and rate-trend figures to evaluate a local water policy that affects different groups unevenly.
- Students will distinguish a value about basic needs from a budget concern and weigh the two in a reasoned position.
Vocabulary
Key words: water shutoff, affordability, counterclaim, assistance fund
Teacher overview
This prompt asks students to take a position on a real question that city councils across the country actually face: whether a public water utility should be allowed to shut off service to households that cannot pay their bills. The task gives students two grounded figures, a widely used affordability threshold and a recent rate trend, and asks them to weigh a basic-needs argument against a budget argument in a written claim. It works as a first evidence-based policy essay in a grade 9 civics or government course.
Prompt
Background: Water costs more than it used to. Across the United States, combined water and sewer bills rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024, faster than prices in general rose over the same years. When a bill climbs and an income does not, some households fall behind. A widely used rule of thumb treats a combined water and sewer bill as a high burden when it costs more than about 4.5 percent of a household's income. That number comes from adding two benchmarks from the federal Environmental Protection Agency: 2.5 percent for drinking water and 2 percent for wastewater. The agency itself has no single official cutoff.
In the fictional city of Halstead, the water utility is owned and run by the city itself. When a household falls three months behind on its water bill, the utility currently shuts off its water until the bill is paid. A member of the city council has proposed a new rule. Under the rule, the utility could not shut off water to a household that qualifies as low income. Instead, the city would create a small assistance fund to help those households pay what they owe over time. The money for the fund would come from a small charge added to every other customer's bill.
Supporters say water is a basic need, and that cutting it off puts a family's health and safety at risk. They point to the rising bills and the 4.5 percent affordability line as evidence that some households simply cannot keep up. Opponents say the utility still has to collect enough money to run the system and repair pipes. They worry that if some customers know they cannot be shut off, more people will stop paying, and the cost will shift onto everyone else.
Writing task: Halstead's city council will soon vote on the proposed rule. Write an argument essay that states a clear claim on whether Halstead should adopt the no-shutoff rule, addresses at least one counterclaim from the other side, and supports your position with evidence from the background material above.
Planning Organizer
| Category | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim (should Halstead adopt the no-shutoff rule?) | |
| Reason 1 and the evidence that supports it | |
| Reason 2 and the evidence that supports it | |
| A counterclaim someone on the other side 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:
Halstead should adopt the no-shutoff rule, because water is a basic need that a city should not take away from families who are already struggling to pay. The background material shows why so many households are falling behind. Combined water and sewer bills rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024, which is faster than prices in general rose. A widely used rule of thumb, built from two federal benchmarks, treats a water and sewer bill as a high burden once it passes about 4.5 percent of a household's income. For a low-income family, a bill that climbs every year can cross that line quickly, and shutting off their water does not make the bill any easier to pay. It only adds a health and safety problem on top of a money problem.
Some council members will argue that the city cannot afford to stop shutoffs, because the utility needs the threat of a shutoff to make sure people pay for the water and pipe repairs the whole city depends on. This is a fair concern, and the rule is written to answer it. The proposal does not erase anyone's bill. It creates an assistance fund that helps low-income households pay what they owe over time, and it keeps the money flowing to the utility instead of leaving the bill unpaid. Because the fund is spread as a small charge across every other customer, no single household carries the whole cost, and the utility still collects what it needs to run the system.
Halstead should approve the no-shutoff rule. The evidence shows that rising bills are pushing some families past what they can afford, and cutting off their water would punish them for a problem the rising rates helped create. An assistance fund protects both the household's basic needs and the utility's budget, which makes it a stronger choice than shutting the water off.
Rubric:
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | No clear position on the rule | States a position but it drifts or stays vague | States one clear, consistent position on the rule | States a clear position and previews the reasoning behind it |
| Evidence and reasoning | No evidence from the background material | Restates one figure without explaining why it matters | Uses at least one figure (the 24 percent rise or the 4.5 percent line) and explains how it supports the claim | Uses both figures and explains how each supports the claim |
| Counterclaim | No counterclaim addressed | Names an opposing view but gives no rebuttal | States a counterclaim and offers a rebuttal | States a counterclaim, rebuts it with specific evidence, and ties the rebuttal back to the claim |
| Organization and conventions | Ideas are disconnected; errors block meaning | Some structure; errors are noticeable but do not block meaning | Clear paragraphs and a concluding statement; few errors | Purposeful structure and a strong conclusion; nearly error-free |
Differentiation
Support (below grade level)
Provide a sentence starter for each Planning Organizer row, such as "One reason Halstead should (or should not) adopt the rule is ___, because the background says ___." Allow the counterclaim and rebuttal to be written as a single "Some people say ___, but ___" sentence.
Extension (above grade level)
Ask students to add a second counterclaim addressing fairness to customers who pay on time, and to propose one specific limit on the assistance fund (for example, an income cutoff or a time limit) that would answer that concern. Students should explain how their limit changes who benefits and who pays.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "shutoff," "affordability," and "counterclaim" with plain definitions and a simple picture of a water bill before the writing task. Allow the Planning Organizer to be completed in short phrases, and provide a word bank of the key terms students can use while drafting.