I agree that the dam should stay up; it provides many benefits to lots of people, such as water and electricity. There is an argument for removing it, focusing on the environmental impact and the way the areas was naturally, but at this point there is so much depending on the dam's benefits it is hard to justify any restoration projects, and that's without considering the significant cost of any such project.

By now, there is such a high reliance upon this dam to provide water to the populace. If plans were to be made to take the dam down, there would first need to be a reliable alternative supply of water - but with how much we are already struggling to supply the current demand, that is highly difficult. Removing it would not only affect water supply, but it would have major impacts on the settled areas with a high population density.

I agree quite a bit with your statements overall. It won't matter how much we transport and redirect water to serve our purposes if that water is flat out unusable. Since we are a part of the problem reducing water quality, it is also important to play a part in the restoration and maintenance of quality.

While it's true that a baseline amount of water quantity is absolutely necessary just because we do need an amount of water, that water has very limited uses if the quality is lacking. Lots of crops we grow need water of a certain quality, in terms of salinity for example, and for drinking we obviously need fairly good quality water. So we do need to have sufficient quantity of water, but that water can't be too useful if the quality is lacking, so it is primarily important to maintain the quality.

While it is true that surface and groundwater have different sources, and are susceptible to different risks, when discussing how to manage and allocate water, why should they not be considered together? Both can only have so much water drawn away, both serve as our supply of available water, if both are used then shouldn't they be considered a summed total that way usage is balanced most optimally between them?

I think that managing groundwater and surface water is an important idea, and one that should be in effect. The two play important roles in the hydrologic cycle and depend on each other to function properly. If one is exhausted beyond sustainability, the other will suffer; it is because of this relationship that they should be taken care of together and managed together.

We may take it for granted, but we also use excessively and wastefully. Do we really need phones and computers produced on the scale they currently are? Massive amounts of food is wasted by an already unsupportable population. Why should we consume disproportionate amounts water and let the environment wither in drought? It may survive with rainwater, but to what extent? And what effect will a degraded environment have on our losing battle against global climate changes?

I think you make some really good points in your argument. Since NorCal has less water demand, there is probably a way to spare some water for use in SoCal; which can put the water towards a more economically beneficial use. As you point out, NorCal's economic benefits stem from sectors not based in water.

I think that NorCal does have a, although perhaps, minimal obligation to support SoCal's water requirements. If NorCal is able to spare water that can be sent south, then obviously the water should be sent where it is needed and can be used, rather than lost to evaporation sitting in storage. However, I don't believe that merely the population in SoCal is enough to justify transporting water on request, as this is just supporting an unstable and unsustainable environment.

I'm on your side that NPS pollution should be regulated; I also agree that one of the motivations for regulating should be the consideration of how, if left unattended, the pollution will continue to accumulate and cause an increasing number of difficult-to-reverse consequences. We can predict some of the consequences that may arise, but we should also consider that a lot of unexpected outcomes could exist with more harm than expected. An example of a dangerously widespread effect would be the corn industry: a vast majority of our corn is actually used in livestock farms, so if NPS pollution caused large damage to corn farms, it would affect both corn and livestock economies, as well as corn and livestock food markets.