I agree with you Miranda! I believe we should really keep the dam. You mentioned that it is our main water source and I believe that yo are right about that too. The counterargument as to why it is not ideal to keep dams is that they can pose more danger if they were to be kept because their structures might not sustain the pressure of the water that they are holding. However, if we do not have dams, we will not enough water supply that could sustain our future needs. It is just someone selfish too to tap onto our groundwater source when we run out of surface level water. We do not have enough water to go around, if we lose our groundwater, that will be a bigger problem later on. We should always think ahead. Instead of completely eradicating our dams, we should really create better laws that will create stronger walls or holds so that the dams will not break.

I believe that it is better to keep the dam. Although it post many problems such as the possible instability of the structure for fear that it will break soon, it still does many wonders. Water quantity is very important especially nowadays when we cannot even find enough water to sustain agricultural needs. We need dams that could help us store water when we do not need it and help maintain our storage. What we need is better laws and more funding to create stronger dams that will not break in case there are too much water from rain or snow. We need better regulations that could help us withhold better structure. But if we completely eradicate dams or other reservoir because we are scared that they might break, we will not have anywhere to keep our water so that we have some to use in the future. Moreover, it provides hydroelectric power that reduces the energy used in domestic life. Dams also provide better water storage. On contrary to common beliefs, dams can actually store clean water. It is important for us to have water storage units so that we do not need to tap onto our finite amount of groundwater.

I find your response very interesting. In this discussion, there is an immediate need for water to fully supply not just our population’s domestic need but also our agriculture and industrial uses. We all talked about how famine is becoming a serious problem we are lacking water resources. Other people feel that water quality is important and that is true, however at the rate that we are going, if we focus more on that, we will definitely lose some of our food resources. We can always find ways to filter our water. We can always implement laws and regulations that would put better care for the quality of our water. The problem is if there is even enough water to put these laws into actions. We need water not just for drinking but for everyday uses. Most of our water is not filtered to certain amount of sterilization. Therefore we don’t need to waste so much energy making every single drop drinkable. I really enjoyed reading your response. I think you are right when you talked about efficiency and that we only need to filtrate certain amounts for the population to drink and domestically use but the rest can be managed differently.

I support your response to manage them together. I believe that it is more efficient for the two water sources to be managed differently. I see that a lot of people here mentioned that there will be an imbalanced if there is one management because the amount of responsibility will favor one from the other. But if one management oversees these two sources, there will be able to know exactly what is going on with both. Therefore they can come up with solutions fast and create plans together that could help in the future. It can be done by separate management but ultimately they would need to get involved with one another because surface level water sources and groundwater can go hand in hand. Moreover, it is not likely that they would try to favor one or the other accidentally. Within the management will be sets of regulations that would oversee exactly that problem. And what better way to understand the problems of both if they are under one organization Just like you said, the management can be the same but they would implement separate rules.

I believe that managing the two water sources has more pros than cons. I see that some people believe that managing two different water sources is better since there is separation of regulations implemented for their relatives subjects. However, it will be more practical to keep one management responsible for both. It is also beneficial because even though surface water and groundwater are different, they are correlated to each other. If surface water disappears, there needs to be a certain amount of groundwater pumped in. Surface level water experts will the ones who would know how much groundwater in needed as they need to consider the future rainfalls and future conditions that could alter the amount. If there is only one management, it will be much efficient since they would already know what to do in certain cases where problems as such would surface. These experts are paid to talk to the each other when it comes to solving problem anyways, it will be much more practical and faster if they really are just working under one management. The problem about contaminating these water system because they are managed conjunctively does not make sense. Under the right supervision, the regulations and careful actions taken into consideration when taking care of these water sources should be effective and well thought of. Therefore, there should not be any sort of contamination that could occur.

I support your claim that water should be equally distributed to everyone. There should be a balance of who can get it and to what amount will they get. There should not be a full on allocation of water to one area only because of the problems in pose afterwards. For example, with no water to support the farmlands, the economy lost billions of dollars in commerce and trade. However, the diversion of water from the north to the south also cost them tons of agricultural growth and health problems. Moreover, the environment is suffering because where the water should be is now a dry lands that is not inhabitable by animals or plant species anymore. I agree when you mentioned that there will be no humans in the environment does not exist. That is true because the environment is where we rely to get our resources from, without it there will be no way we can survive.

I support equal emphasis. Water is the source of life which means without it, there will be no future in all aspects of living. The environment for example is such a huge part of living because it provides the sources that are needed to survive. If the source of all necessities eventually disappears, we as humans will have no other place to seek help from. The environment is suffering but there are no concrete laws that saves it from being completely destroyed. If human needs are the only ones that are considered all the time, then as we move further on with our lives, there will be no more future. This same argument can be seen through the actions of allocating water throughout california. It is true that the south needed tons of water resource to sustain the growing agricultural industry, but to completely divert water from the source to the farmlands ended up creating more problems to deal with later on. People from dry lands did not get the water they needed to survive. Moreover, the environment started suffering. Animals were migrating to places that actually can provide necessities. Grasslands turned to deserts. It was not a fair act to allocate every ounces of water to one location because of the problems it left behind. How will humans survive if day by day, the environment is not taken into account? Where will be source our water if we dont take care of what we have now before it is gone.

Very nice response, I agree with your arguments. I also mentioned that since north cal has more water resource and they can renew it through precipitation, they should be able to provide at least the excess water amounts to south cal. South cal doe not have an easy access of water and we cannot stop the growth of population in that area, therefore to help them prosper, north cal should share their water supply to help the agriculture aspects of south cal and the daily needs of its people. Many of the people here argued that south cal should not have that many people in that part of the state but population growth is not controllable. People will move to where there are free spaces to live and if we are to place all the people of the south to the north, there will be overcrowding. Since the population is dispersed throughout the state, economical growth is possible since north cal can focus on dealing with technological advances and south cal can provide agricultural uses. Both areas have their own roles yet should always combat problems together as a team to overcome these obstacles. If south cal needs water to sustain crop yields, north cal should definitely provide that need.

I agree that Northern California should provide water for Southern California. As shown in the powerpoint, southern california has more people living in them. If one were to argue that water is a human right, then it is only proper to provide water to the people who live down south. Their daily need for water can only be sustained through the bodies of water that the North can offer. Moreover, as an economically developing state, SC actually has much more potential in economic growth because of the weather and farm areas. According to the slides, Northern California is more concentrated on the biomedical, technology, and finance aspect of growth whereas SC has more potential in agriculture. However, they cannot do this if there is not water in the area. 75% of freshwater is within NC anyways and if they are not able to use it, they should share it with their southern neighbors. Furthermore, NC receives "100 inches of precipitation per year" which can renew the water resource whenever it starts to deplete. SC has hotter temperatures and lower amounts of rain which make it difficult to satisfy water needs both for daily and agricultural usage. If there is excess amounts of water in NC, there should be enough to cover both the north and the south with the right ways of regulation.

You were very informative in your response! I agree with what you said about the major contributors is humans. For this reason, humans should be able to do something about the consequences of their actions since ultimately, we will be the ones suffering in the end. Water contaminants can cause serious health problems not only to us but also to other living beings. If nothing is done, even the future generations will suffer the consequences. In my response, I mentioned that it is almost impossible to have people follow rules and take extra care into water usage such as not washing cars at home because the soapy water will head towards the drains that lead back to the ocean. By then, aquatic animals will suffer and different environmental problems will start popping up. Ironically enough, the deed comes back into full cycle as we eat the seafood that comes from the contaminated waters.