I agree with your argument because if we can store water we can use it for our everyday needs since it is essential. It is a way to store water and generate electricity for the people around to use. Removing the dam is going to cost money so why not use the money instead to keep the dam so the money is used wisely. Government money should not be wasted to harm the people's livelihood.

I support keeping the dam mainly because the impacts it has had on the environment and to the humans around have already been adapted to. Any harm that was already caused, the animals and people have adjusted to. Many people are sort of dependent on this dam so it makes sense to just keep as destroying it would shift the ecosystem that people are already used to. Destroying it now would only hurt the environment again to who or what is already living there.

In a way I disagree with your argument because water even though it is dirty, people still use it. In third world countries that can't afford to keep their water clean enough for healthy consumption or use still use it in order to live. Humans and other animals have the ability to adapt to different water qualities. However the amount of water is important because without it there would be no one living.

I kind if disagree with your response, since they are two different sources that need to be managed differently than the other. If they are put together, there is not another group that can dispute the management process. It's like a checks and balance system since there has to be a group to make sure the water is not mismanaged. They should be separate from the get go because the better it is checked the safer the bodies of water will be.

These two sources of water should be managed separately. They are two different sources of water that each have a different management, so putting them together isn't the ideal plan because each source cannot be the same. Also one source renews faster than the other and the maintenance on each differs. The two don't really have many similarities and if mismanaged can mess up the water sources entirely.

At least the money is going somewhere good. Humans need water, but we don't need to monopolize it for only us to use. Other species are dependent on these resources too. If we take care of our environment it would come to full circle to benefit ourselves. We should not focus on a small scale and a state for all cases. If we don't see the bigger picture we would be doomed to suffer more rather than helping what's around us.

I believe that the environment should get equal emphasis when compared to humans. Humans are just one of many different species of living things in the environment. Who is to say that we deserve all the water? If we mess with the environment, it will hit us back. We've all seen the setbacks of it so far with global warming and the soil losing its nutrients. Water is an important resource sure, but if it can't circulate for other species too, we would just be destroying other things that we need in turn.

Your argument has given me some insight into agreeing with some of your points. SoCal is kind of overpopulated as it is and if we get the resources we need, it would continue to grow and become more crowded. LA traffic would get worse and it would contribute into giving more greenhouse gases and then hotter temperatures. Maybe we should halt the growth of L.A. by restraining water given because they aren't really required to give SoCal more water, maybe just enough so they can survive, but not grow to the point where more people can come in and take more resources.

I believe that NorCal should have an obligation to continue providing water to SoCal. SoCal has enough trouble as it is to get water and we as a state should try our best to spread water somewhat equally so that everyone gets it. SoCal is economically valuable to the state so if it falls apart, then it will affect NorCal too. If NorCal gets an excess of water too then why not share it before it goes to waste.

I have to disagree, only because I want to keep our environment as clean as possible. Some people are already struggling as it is to live in the pollution or with it. The rain can take the nearby pollutants with it, but that's also how we get acid rain. Besides that, there has to be a way to keep it clean though or to prevent it since that pollution has to have a source or sources that we can try to identify and prevent. If not we could try to regulate more of the sources we know now in order to stop these unknown bits if pollution although it is refuting the side I am on a little.