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.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Cmct

Reward Points:15
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:15
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I agree the dam needs to go, but not yet. We just don't have viable options or alternatives that could provide the Bay with adequate water supply. Additionally, we would lose the dam's hydroelectric power. Before replacing the dam, we need to have a clear, reliable solution, which we just don't have at this point. Dam removal seems like it will cause more human and environmental problems than it will solve. The project would jeopardize so many people too. Honestly I wish we could restore the environment, but it seems impractical.

1 point

All in all, I think dams are a bad idea. However, the Hetchy Hetchy dam already supports the massive Bay area population. Because there are no viable alternatives to restoration, I think Hetchy Hetchy must stay in place. Although the dam has environmental side effects, removal also has many negative impacts and would only add to the problem at this point. Providing hydroelectric power and clean water supply are benefits of the dam and although I'd prefer alternative solutions, there aren't many that make sense. To me restoring Hetchy Hetchy is the safest and most reliable option on the list of generally mediocre solutions.

1 point

I disagree. We can pay attention to quality first to assess if the quantity is even worth storing. Certain polluted conditions should be diverted from human storage in favor of better water.

1 point

I agree, quality is most important. No matter the amount of water, if it isn't good quality it can't be used for its various purposes. Quantity only helps if the water is of usable quality. Human survival depends on a specific quality of water, rather than certain other animals and environments than can survive with less clean water.

1 point

I think logically in terms of management organizations, it makes sense for ground and surface water to be managed together. Of course there would be separate management rules for the different systems because ground water and surface water are fundamentally different in how they are accessed, how they impact wildlife, and how their infrastructure is created. However, to keep communications easy between the two highly interlocking systems, they should be managed by a larger governing body with 3 or more groups that focus on each system (ground and surface) and their connections. This way when dealing with pollution, drought, water allocations, and environmental restoration, each system can be fully accounted for and incorporated into the plan.

1 point

I agree, separate management doesn't necessarily mean separate management groups or entities. One group with two sets of professionals focussing on groundwater vs surface water could work together and separately to manage both systems effectively. Perhaps a third set of professionals who study ground and surface water relationships could also serve in the management group. To me it seems there are three key management categories to fulfill whether by one or more organizations: groundwater management, surface water management, and ground-to-surface water relationship management.

cmct(15) Clarified
1 point

But, the environment would till be protected. There are already so many environmental preservation initiatives in place. The government and corporations would still have to abide by environmental law. In regards to allocations humans should be prioritized, but that doesn't directly lead to pollution. Besides, humans rely on environmental protection to receive and maintain clean water.

1 point

I understand that transferring water is costly, but your proposition to move people and agriculture instead doesn't seem practical. First, would the government incentivize moving to NoCal? Is it practical that people will want to or can afford to voluntarily uproot their lives and move? How many people would actually agree, and would it really impact the amount of water needed in a substantial way?

Secondly, agriculture can't just move. Certain climates, terrains, and soil types are necessary for each type of crop. Additionally, will farmers want to move? Where will there be space for new farms to develop?

1 point

I agree that Northern California is ultimately obligated to provide water for Southern California. Firstly, neglecting to provide SoCal with water is unethical. Depriving the enormous SoCal population from water for food, hygiene, and domestic purposes is cruel when there is enough water to supply the whole state. Additionally, there is a state obligation of loyalty that plays a role. However, transporting water to SoCal is also beneficial to NoCal. Northern California profits monetarily, politically, and physically from the agriculture industry in SoCal. Without Southern California agriculture, NoCal would have to find new food sources and would not benefit economically from SoCal agricultural exports which serve much of the United States.

1 point

I agree, and further, I'm surprised nonpoint source pollution hasn't been regulated already. At least measuring un accounted for pollutants and trying to explain their origins an official way seems like basic water quality protection to me. How can CA develop solutions to protect its water from pollution disasters that could occur in the future, without knowing where the under-analyzed parts of the CA water system are? Shouldn't CA monitor areas with minor pollution to prevent future slip ups?

Cmct 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