CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS JustinChen

Reward Points:13
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
100%
Arguments:13
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I think the dam shouldn't be removed. It's true that it will cost quite a lot to restore Hetch Hetchy, but there isn't really a feasible method of holding/storing all the water somewhere else at the moment. There's also the issue of what damage to the ecosystems around Hetch Hetchy removal/deconstruction of the dam could cause. Hetch Hetchy is also a very important source of water for many people, especially in the Bay Area (could also be said to be the most important source), and there just aren't many other options (i.e. good options) to replace Hetch Hetchy at the moment.

1 point

The Hetch Hetchy dam should be restored/preserved. Being from San Francisco, I am directly impacted by the water from Hetch Hetchy and I can vouch for the cleanliness and overall quality of the water from Hetch Hetchy. To remove the dam would be the equivalent of opening a Pandora's box of problems. Ecosystems and the water in the area around Hetch Hetchy would be impacted, whether it's the destruction of ecosystems or adding impurities into the water. The dam is also a source of renewable energy (i.e. hydroelectric) so removal of the dam would be removing a source for renewable energy. The Delta is becoming increasingly saline, so Hetch Hetchy is one of the few sources that the Bay Area can really depend on. The importance of Hetch Hetchy and the greater Hetch Hetchy Project cannot be further emphasized.

1 point

I agree with you that groundwater and surface water should be managed separately. I think that a singular system would be "practical" in the short run, but it wouldn't really be wise in the long run. Sure, separate management would take longer for any policies and whatnot to take place or be established, but water is a precious resource, so I think it's only appropriate to take time and care to properly manage groundwater and surface water sources. I also agree with your point that joint management could lead to a blurred line between ground water and surface water. This could lead to potential over-pumping of groundwater, and in the event of a drought (one similar to the 2012-2016 drought), the consequences could be quite devastating.

1 point

I think groundwater and surface water should be managed separately, on the basis that there are more flaws to a singular mode of management than not. Certainly, jointly managing groundwater and surface water would be more "easy" because there would be less paperwork and/or cross checking for any issues between different groups managing the two sources of water. However, groundwater and surface water are very different in where they are found, what they are used for, and especially how much of each is used. Sure, jointly managing the two water sources would reduce how much surface water is used (we mostly use surface water for many day-to-day uses, like drinking), but this would come at the cost of using more groundwater (more drilling and pumping), which is meant to be a reserve or even a back-up source. If the two sources of water became jointly managed under a singular system, any pathogens or pollutants could impact the system more severely, as the water is now combined. Of course, it's not as if pollutants can't permeate through the ground and pollute groundwater, but separating management of groundwater and surface water under two separate systems rather than one could reduce damage to the two sources when compared to the damage that could be done to combined source of groundwater and surface water. Plus, having experts in their respective fields develop methods of management for groundwater and surface water (as they aren't as similar to one another as we may think) would be better for sustaining both sources individually, and if one of the sources becomes contaminated beyond reasonable means of fixing it, at least there's still a source of water to use, versus a singular system where all the water is contaminated.

1 point

I don't think humans have more emphasis for water planning and allocation. Certainly, it's not as if nobody takes our water for granted, but I don't believe that's the reason people believe more water should be delegated to the environment. I agree with the point you made about water being needed for production of products and for other uses as well (medical, food, etc.) However, not all of these uses of water is necessarily a necessity (i.e. phones and computers). I think that the environment is just as important as humans when it comes to water planning and allocation. Clean and good quality water is also quite important for what you mentioned water is needed for (i.e. electronics, medical uses, food), and not placing as much emphasis on the environment would have detrimental effects on the water being planned and allocated for such uses.

1 point

I think the environment should get as much emphasis as humans in water planning and allocation in California. Certainly, the argument could be made that much of the water in California is allocated toward agricultural use, and agriculture does have quite an impact on the environment, so one would think California water planning and allocation might be centered around the environment. However, agriculture is first and foremost a human activity, meant for the benefit of humans, not the environment, so agriculture is still definitely planned around human use. I think the most important factor to consider is that we as humans are part of the environment, not detached from it. The biggest takeaway is not to look at this matter as either the environment or humans taking precedence for priority when it comes to California water planning and allocation, but to look at this matter as humans and the environment sharing equal emphasis for water planning and allocation. Ensuring that California water planning and allocation takes into consideration the environment first (but not with more emphasis) and making sure that pollutants are reduced as much as possible will be necessary, as that will also likely increase cleanliness and overall quality of water for human use.

1 point

I agree with the points you made on this issue. Though I think NorCal has an obligation to provide water to SoCal, that's only the surface-level way of looking at the matter. I think there are some serious regulations/policies that need to be considered, because even if it's only fair or whatnot to share water and make it accessible to everyone in California, how it's used is just as important. I think making sure that the water is used as a resource for necessity rather than for recreation should be a top priority. You do also make a fair point about money as well, and it certainly is a driving force behind how water is used across the state and beyond.

1 point

I agree that NorCal does have an obligation to continue providing water to SoCal, specifically on the premises that water (especially clean water) is a resource that should be accessible to people in all parts of the state (it's not just a civic responsibility, but it's also the morally correct thing to do). The biggest issue lies in the fact that most of California's water is situated in and distributed through NorCal, while most of the demand for water is from those in SoCal. However, if NorCal does continue providing water to SoCal, some policies should be made for how that water might be used; perhaps regarding the water being used for essential uses (urban life, agriculture, etc.) vs. recreational uses.

1 point

I agree with you on the premise that non-point source pollution is difficult to regulate, and it's certainly the case as NPS is hard to trace. I also agree that we should focus on regulation of pollution overall. However, I disagree with the idea that NPS should not be regulated, because the repercussions of such a decision would be incalculable (especially long-term). Also, with this being a matter of should or should not, I think that even if regulating NPS isn't easy, it still should be done, and perhaps one way that could be done ties back to the idea of regulation pollution overall, or as a whole, because once we start regulating pollution as a whole, we'll already have a foundation to work off of regarding regulation of NPS.

1 point

I agree that NPS should be regulated. It would certainly be difficult to regulate NPS pollution, as it isn't point source pollution where it's easy to trace, and it isn't economically practical to regulate NPS. However, that doesn't mean that NPS should not be regulated. Even if it isn't practical, it should still be done, as NPS pollution impacts not only humans, but all parts of nature and wildlife, and NPS will only exacerbate the problems pollution already presents us if left alone. Perhaps a first step that could be taken would be to start with more regulation of pollution overall, as point source pollution is a likely contributor or even cause of some non-point source pollution.

JustinChen has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here