I agree, we could find ourselves in a possible Flint water situation if we switch our water sources. If we switch we are putting ourselves in a gamble.

I believe that it is important to weigh out the pros of keeping the dam, and keeping the dam weighs out more importantly than destroying it. It is important to note how much Hetchy Hetchy provides to the Bay Area. I believe providing water to millions of homes is more important than restoring nature around it. However, it would be a different story if the dam provided water to farm land. If water is not flowing in farm land it would not be able to flush out run off water, but this is not the case.

I could see why water quantity is more important than water quality. However, if water is not clean it isn't useful. Climate change (due to human activity) is especially important to think about as well. We are already constantly polluting the air from factories and cars and to get electricity. If we are not taking care of water we are not taking care of the environment.

I support Water QUALITY over water quantity. As mentioned in the video water pollution sources (water metals, salinization, industrial waste, organic matter, water runoff) are not good for the human body. A great example for this is the Flint water crisis. Without usable and CLEAN water the people of flint were unable to take baths, wash dishes, DRINK water due to the terrible water QUALITY of their water. All because their governing body wanted to save money by changing to a different water resource. This is a great example of how water quality is more important than water quality.

Although they do need to be managed together, they are two different ways in which we obtain it. For example, surface water is easy to irrigate and determine how much we are able to use. However, for groundwater it is more difficult because we are unaware of how much we have. There needs to be a system in which we determine when and why you draw sources from each. Especially considering groundwater can become un-replenishable at a certain point.

They should be managed separately because essentially they are clearly too different types of water sources that need separate care. For example, as mentioned groundwater can have salinity problems due to something like over use. Then surface water there are a lot of problems such as damming, run off water, irrigation from state to state, and so on. They should be managed separately, but they should be managed efficiently and have specific rules for obtaining water from them.

I totally agree with this argument! Without one we can not have the other. Both heavily rely on each other to flourish. In the Pro side of this argument they mentioned that plant help filter and clean water and water helps flush out nasty stuff in the soil. This is just a simple example of how each go hand in hand with each other. Therefore, both (environment & water) should be equally protected and prioritized.

I really enjoyed your presentation it was well organized and the audio was clear! You made good points throughout your presentation, but what really stood out to me was when you mentioned that if we are not taking care of our environment how are we going to take care of our water. Water is a part of nature! We need to treat both very carefully. Without the environment we will be unable to grow crops which is especially essential to California, with it being a top Agricultural state.

To add on to your argument, I also agree that SoCal should not use our water for luxury usage. For example, using water to water their huge lawns and backyards to show off to their neighbors or friends and family. I agree that we should provide them with water, however their should be regulations in how they should use it.

I support the argument that Northern California does not have an obligation to provide water to SoCal. I agree because cities, primarily Los Angeles, use a lot of our water to water their lawns and backyards for luxury use. If SoCal is allowed to use out water it should be primarily to use it for agricultural use as well as in area that are useful and beneficial to SoCal, and not for luxury use.