I agree with your statement about the environment. The removal of the dam would affect many species which would be detrimental for the environment

I personally thing that the Hetch Hetchy should not be removed. The water that comes from this area is clean and safe which means it would be hard to find another source of water that would be a suitable replacement. Using the energy that is produced from Hetch Hetchy is beneficial and is not something that should be removed.

You assumed that the lower quality water would still be safe to drink but how can we know for sure? There are cases everywhere around the world of people succumbing to illness or even dying because their drinking water was contaminated. In my personal opinion it is irresponsible and inhumane to provide water if it is not 100�rtain that it is safe to drink.

I agree that water quality is important than water quantity. While I believe that both are very important, if I had to choose one I would go with quality because there is no point in having a large quantity of water if it is unhealthy. This will just end up doing damage to the health of the people consuming the water and it would be better to ensure that they have clean drinkable water.

I agree with what you said. I like the point you bring up about the lack of regulation between the surface water and the groundwater. This is a major concern because safe drinking water is extremely vital for the health of humans and this would pose a risk to the purity of our drinking water.

I am for the con side of this argument. I believe that the two different sources of water should be separately managed from one another. They have little in common as both sources of water come from different locations and are stored in different ways. Naturally, this should mean that they are treated differently. It does not make sense that they are regarded as the same when they serve different purposes. For example, surface water is usually used more for drinking water while groundwater provides for much of all the other uses. Not only would the management combination lower the effectiveness of water policy in California, but it would also put our drinking water at risk of contamination from the groundwater.

I completely agree with this statement. Humans cannot thrive without a reliable water source and this water source would not be possible if the environment was not well kept. While both sides are important, one should not overshadow the other.

I personally agree with the statement that the environment should get the same amount of attention as humans when it comes to California's water allocation and plans. After all, the environment is the source of the water and in order to have clean and safe water we must have a healthy environment. Focusing more on humans would not help much because there is not much point in doing that when the quality of water is compromised.

Yes, I agree with this point and it was something that wasn't really mentioned in the video. Socal's population is much larger and the sharing of water would even things out greatly throughout all of California.

Yes I agree with your point. Even a little bit of regulation would be better than nothing because this way we would know that there is something being done to protect the safety of our ecosystems.