I like how you mentioned it would cause more harm, and if it comes to the point the bay area can't be sustained without they might have to construct another dam. In the meanwhile, research should develop a better alternative that is as effective as the Hetchy Hetchy dam. It will take time but is the only best alternative to restore the valley to its natural state without having to disrupt the need for water of the bay.

The Hetchy Hetchy dam should still continue to be active, but for a minimum time. It is a major source of water for the bay and silicon valley for its technology by the power of hydroelectric. However, options for better alternatives should be researched, where the water is still pure but environmentally friendly. Once an alternative approach is researched and tested they should take the initiative to remove the dam and the new system for the bay area.

Although I agree with you, I don't think it goes to the extreme of contaminated water that is harmful for consumption. For example, tap water isn't something people want to drink every day but is still safe to drink. That is an example of being able to sacrifice the quality for more quantity.

Although water quality is important as well as the quantity we have it's more effective to provide water for everyone. I'm assuming the quality of the water is still safe for consumption, then we should sacrifice some quality to ensure we have the quantity to provide. Then it goes to say the ones in higher economic status will have access to clean fresh water. Efficiency is effective so all water needs to be distributed properly as long as it is safe to drink to meet the demand of the increasing population.

I agree with you, regarding climate change. It's important to prioritize this concern because it will affect our future consumption of water. However, the environment is already a priority. We need to protect the environment since this is our home and need it for our survival.

I like that you mentioned if they are managed jointly they would replenish the water supply. That is important to understand and is something not worth risking. Also, agree with the pollution which I didn't think about. If one source gets contaminated both will.

Analogous to this argument would be jointing computer with electrical engineers. One works with hardware and another with the circuits within the hardware. Doing this separates the specific skill of each employee. So to understand an efficient method for groundwater or surface water, they need to be managed separately so a group can learn that one problem rather than two.

I agree with you that the population in SoCal is only increasing, so there needs to be an obligation to provide water. There isn't enough water in SoCal to provide to its people, so being part of the same state, it's the law to provide clean and fresh water.

Yes NorCal has an obligation because we are one state. SoCal has more of a demand for water, due to higher population, there are citizens that need access to clean and fresh water. So in terms of the same state, there needs to be an obligation for water to SoCal. For citizen use and agriculture use, for example the citrus fruits grown in SOCal.

I agree with you because it seems they underestimate how important water is and what good is it if its contaminated with metals, chemicals, and etc. After all we are 60 percent water. It's not healthy for human consumption nor is it healthy to maintain a thriving ecosystem. We need to regulate it.