Writing prompt Grade 9 Social Studies & Civics
Requiring Green Stormwater Design in Pellston: An Argument Prompt
A grade 9 argument prompt where students take a position on whether a fast-growing fictional city should require green stormwater design in all new development.
Objectives
- Students will write an argument that states a claim and addresses a counterclaim.
- Students will use evidence about runoff and cost to support a policy position.
- Students will explain how a design rule affects different groups differently.
Vocabulary
- Green infrastructure
- Green infrastructure uses soil and plants, like rain gardens, green roofs, and street trees, to soak up rainwater where it falls instead of piping it away. It copies the way nature handles rain.
- Permeable pavement
- Permeable pavement is a special kind of pavement full of tiny gaps that let rainwater soak straight through it into the ground below, instead of running off like it would on regular pavement. Parking lots and sidewalks can be built with it to reduce stormwater runoff.
- Bioswale
- A bioswale is a wide, shallow, plant-lined channel that slows down stormwater and lets it soak in as it moves. You often see bioswales along parking lots and streets.
Also: runoff, counterclaim
Teacher overview
As a city grows, new roads, roofs, and parking lots replace soil that once soaked up rain, and the extra runoff can flood streets and streams. This prompt asks students to take a position on how a growing city should handle that runoff: by building bigger storm pipes, or by requiring builders to use green design that lets rain soak into the ground. The question pits the cost to developers against the flooding risk to everyone downstream, which gives students a genuine argument to make.
Prompt
Background: The fictional city of Pellston is growing fast. New subdivisions and shopping centers are replacing open fields with hard surfaces. Rain that once soaked into the soil now runs off these surfaces quickly, and Pellston's older storm drains cannot keep up. Streets flood during heavy storms, and a creek downtown overflows more often than it used to.
Engineers explain the problem with runoff coefficients, which estimate how much rain runs off a surface instead of soaking in. A paved surface has a coefficient of about 0.9, meaning most of the rain runs off. A lawn has a coefficient of about 0.2, so most of the rain soaks in. Paving over fields raises the runoff sharply.
Pellston's council is weighing two responses. The first is to expand the storm-pipe system, paid for by all taxpayers. The second is to require every new development to manage part of its own stormwater on site using green infrastructure, such as permeable pavement, rain gardens, and bioswales. These features let rain soak into the ground where it falls. Builders say the green rule would raise the cost of new homes and stores. Residents downstream say they should not have to pay, through taxes and flood damage, for runoff that new development creates.
Writing task: Write an argument essay that states a clear claim on whether Pellston should require green stormwater design in all new development. Support your claim with at least two reasons drawn from the background above. Address at least one counterclaim that a developer or homebuyer might raise about cost, and explain why your position still holds. End with a clear concluding statement.
Planning Organizer
| Category | Your notes |
|---|---|
| Claim (should Pellston require green stormwater design?) | |
| Reason 1 + evidence from the background | |
| Reason 2 + evidence from the background | |
| Counterclaim a developer or homebuyer 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:
Pellston should require green stormwater design in all new development, because the city cannot keep paving over land without paying for the flooding that follows. The background makes the cause clear. A paved surface has a runoff coefficient of about 0.9, while a lawn has a coefficient of only about 0.2. That means new subdivisions and parking lots send far more rain rushing into storm drains than the fields they replaced. Pellston's older drains already cannot keep up, so streets flood and the downtown creek overflows. Requiring green features like permeable pavement and rain gardens would let much of that rain soak into the ground where it falls, treating the problem at its source instead of downstream.
A green rule is also fairer than the alternative. If the city simply builds bigger storm pipes, every taxpayer pays for runoff that new development creates. Requiring builders to manage their own stormwater puts the cost on the projects that add the runoff, not on residents who had nothing to do with it. This matches a basic idea of fairness: the group that causes a cost should help pay for it.
Some developers and homebuyers will argue that the rule raises the price of new homes and stores, and that is a real concern. Green features do add to a project's upfront cost, and higher home prices can hurt buyers. But this cost has to be weighed against the flood damage, higher taxes, and repeated street closures that come with doing nothing. Those costs fall on the whole community, year after year, and they grow as the city grows. Paying a bit more at the start to prevent flooding is a better deal than paying for damage forever. The council could also soften the burden by allowing builders to choose which green features fit their site best.
Pellston should adopt the green stormwater rule. The runoff numbers show why unmanaged paving causes flooding, and placing the cost on new development is both more effective and more fair than asking every taxpayer to cover it.
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 reasoning |
| Evidence & reasoning | No evidence from the background | Restates one fact without explaining its relevance | Uses at least one specific detail and explains how it supports the claim | Uses two or more specific details and explains how each supports the claim |
| Counterclaim | 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 conclusion; virtually error-free |
Differentiation
Support
Provide sentence starters for each Planning Organizer row ("One reason Pellston should or should not require green design is ___, because the background says ___.") and allow the counterclaim and rebuttal to be combined into a single sentence.
Extension
Ask students to add a second counterclaim addressing whether small builders could afford the rule, and to propose one fair exception or phase-in, using only the background provided rather than outside research.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "green infrastructure," "runoff," "counterclaim," "permeable pavement," and "bioswale" with a labeled picture showing rain soaking into a rain garden versus running off pavement. Allow the Planning Organizer to be filled in with phrases before drafting.