(Music) - Hi everybody, welcome to Both Sides of The Story.

I'm your host Alan Gionet from CBS4 and thank you for joining us.

This is the second of our four preliminary rounds of our 2021 tournament.

Featuring eight students from eight different high schools, and we have brought back a fan favorite from last season.

We've kept our consolation bracket, so you'll have a chance to get to see all of our students debate multiple times this season.

It's a great season on tonight's show.

Students from Denver's East High School and George Washington High School in a faceoff of two schools in the Denver School District.

So, let's meet our participants now.

First up, Graham Cummings Graham is a senior from Denver East High School.

Let's see his story.

- My name is Graham Cummings.

I'm a senior and I go to East high school, Speech & Debate kind of drew me in because part of me is competitive and just likes to do well at things and win tournaments is a big thing and then also just academic part of it that you can be competitive in a way that's not the usual route of sports.

Skills of communicating and researching are super important though.

Help me in whatever I choose to do in the future.

- Graham works incredibly hard.

He's a quiet leader.

He wants everybody in the room to feel like they belong there anytime he does a round, he comes and asks questions.

He shares information and then he takes it back to the team and really tries to foster relationships with everybody and it's just such a natural leader.

- The advice I would give to people that are new in Speech & Debate is that it's going to be hard and you're going to hate every part of it for the first year or two and that there will be a lot of losses and a lot of people that will be better than you, but you will see improvement if you keep trying.

- An impressive young man.

Now let's meet an impressive young woman.

Next, Kalina Kulig, a senior from George Washington High School.

So here is her story.

- My name is Kalina Kulig and I go to George Washington High School where I am a senior.

I'm very passionate about what's going on in the world so that inspires me to keep debating and that's part of what inspires me to research every resolution because I like finding out how the world works, and I like exploring different ideas.

I'm also very involved in local politics.

I love researching that and then attending different events that are related to that.

- Kalina is really really hard worker on our team.

She's always thinking about the bigger picture and the kind of debate that she does is focused on the world the way it ought to be, so they often use different philosophical concepts in order to support that.

Kalina has done a great deal of reading and exploring, and she's really able to break that down so that it's understandable and also really helps support for debate argument.

- One of my favorite things to do is talk to people from other schools at tournaments.

And meet them and hear about what their life is like and that's been something that I've enjoyed.

- Also joining us, our special panel of experts who will offer their analysis of our debate, they are Dominic Dezzutti, host of Colorado decides the election debate series produced in conjunction with CBS4.

He is joined by Marianne Goodland, Chief Statehouse reporter for Colorado Politics.

So, the questions are going to be tough, time to set the ground rules.

Each side will present their case.

They'll ask each other questions and then have a chance to offer rebuttals.

Both students had prepared a pro and con case for tonight's debate.

They won't know which side they'll defend until we have our coin flip.

Right here in our studio.

When it's finished, we'll go to our illustrious panel for questions and find out who they felt offered the best arguments.

So let's get started.

Right now.

Big issue up for debate today it's this; Should the state of Colorado implement no grass restrictions on all new residential landscaping?

Let's have our coin flip right now we're going to get things underway and Graham, I'm going to let you make the call, so I'm going to ask heads or tails, what do you like?

- Take tails.

- And heads it is, so I am afraid I'm going to have to go to Kalina to make the call now on what you want, affirmative or negative?

- I'll take the negative.

- Negative, so we're going to start with Graham first, so Graham, you now have 3 minutes to make your case in the affirmative, go ahead.

- I stand in firm affirmation of the resolve.

The state of Colorado should implement no grass restrictions on all new residential landscaping.

My contention one is water usage and the status quo Colorado citizens are using excessive amounts of water to maintain grasslands that aren't entirely necessary.

Lawn irrigation makes up an absurd amount of our water consumption.

One CSU study found that in Colorado a typical household needs approximately 150,000 gallons to satisfy the demands of a home and landscape in the outdoor water use accounts for about 55% of the residential water use.

This overuse of water will lead will only increase as the population of Colorado grows.

Colorado Department of Local Affairs projects the state's population to nearly double by 2050, as Colorado's Colorado Water plan points out, this population growth will create a significant need for an additional 600,000 to 1,000,000 acre-feet of water annually to meet future municipal and industrial demands.

The impacts of overuse and water and cuts in Colorado are already being felt nationwide.

CNN Rachel Ramirez finds that Lake Mead, the largest reservoir in the US by volume, has drained at an alarming rate this year at around 35% full.

The Colorado River Reservoir is at its lowest since the lake was filled.

Lake Powell, the country's second-largest reservoir, recently sank to a record low and is now 32%, full critical reservoirs in the US are at their lowest points in decades.

Because of excessive water usage, this has two major impacts nationwide.

First, many states rely on this water to fuel their economies.

Drew Conniff at CNN in 2020 states that the river supports around one trillion of economic activity each year.

Water from the Colorado River is a necessity in sustaining large populations in agriculture in major parts of the US.

Additionally, the loss of water due to overconsumption is very important because these reservoirs provide not just economic benefits for certain areas, but are critical to providing drinking water for millions of people.

The Department of the Interior States that the Colorado River and its tributaries provide water for nearly 40 million people for municipal use.

And if current trends continue and no policy is changed, all of these people will be left with little to no drinking water.

A 2017 study by Conservation Colorado estimates that by 2050 we're predicted to have a shortage of half a million-acre feet of water per year.

That's enough water for 2.5 million families.

Colorado water consumption, specifically water consumption related to lawn irrigation is way too high without sustainable policies such as no grass restrictions being put in place, this trend will continue and reservoirs will run dry.

This issue stretches far beyond possible aesthetic impacts on Colorado homes, and it's a nationwide problem that if left unregulated, will see the health of millions of individuals impacted nationwide.

- Graham, thank you very much, Graham Cummings with his opening statement in the affirmative and now in the negative, Kalina Kulig 2 minutes for cross-examination and questions go ahead.

- Alright, So your main point you're talking about water usage.

What would you suggest that people use for landscaping?

If not grass?

- I think that native grass is an alternative such as turf requires much less water usage and will become more sustainable in the future as they grow into these new developments.

- Okay, so alternative grasses and turfs.

But wouldn't alternative grass is also be prohibited under this resolution?

- No, because they don't have to be grasses.

Things such as cacti, a wildflower, plants that are already native to the Colorado area that has grown here without additional watering for thousands of years could be put in place and they wouldn't fall under the restrictions specifically about graphs.

- Let's look at this idea of turf that you suggested.

Aren't you concerned about all of the plastic usage that follows that?

And the plastic potentially getting into the storm drains or being eaten by animals?

- Sure, that could be an argument, but I would argue that's what's more important is providing drinking water.

To the people that rely on the Colorado River, this impact goes way farther beyond just Colorado.

We have to take responsible steps to provide for the economic development and well-being of other states outside Colorado.

- Okay, but if our drinking water has plastic from Astroturf in it, is it useful to us at all?

- I would say no, but I would argue that the amount of turf isn't the main problem in plastic use in the US.

There are other factors, such as overconsumption of just normal commercial goods that lead to more plastic use.

It's not solely because of turf.

- Alright, and going back to the idea of native grasses or cacti.

Is there anything in this resolution that requires people to plant things that use less water than grass?

- Well, I think that a great alternative to grass could be seen by most people as native plants in cacti, as I mentioned, people don't want to leave... - But, there is not anything in the resolution, right?

- No, I wouldn't say that.

But people don't want to leave their yards bearing with just rocks, so they're going to find other ways to make their house look good.

That is also sustainable within the status quo.

- Thank you.

- Alright, we have to wrap up the questions right there, but Kalina right now the floor is yours.

3 minutes to make your case in the negative, go ahead.

- I negate the resolved the state of Colorado should implement no grass restrictions on all new residential landscaping for three reasons.

First, the alternatives to grass are worse.

If you were a home developer and you couldn't use grass, would you use concrete or other plants?

Most people would choose other plants.

Demonstrating the fatal flaw in this policy, the plants that will replace grass might require more water.

This undermines any affirmative argument about saving water.

The practical planter describes several common plants that require more water than grass, like ferns, and irises.

So why forbid people from growing grass when there is no guarantee that we will save any water?

But let's imagine that those developers choose to use concrete instead.

We can't ignore the fact that 8% of global carbon emissions come from mixing concrete according to the New York Times, or maybe you choose Astroturf, but that's just more plastic that will spill out of the lawn and into the water supply or hurt animals that eat it accidentally.

Second, it will decrease property values and harm our schools.

According to Homelite, 94% of realtors agree that grass adds value to a property.

What's more concrete?

An astroturf significantly decreased property values according to Daniel Ray in 2021 lowering property values also decreases revenue from property taxes.

Lower revenue is dangerous because that money funds schools.

According to the Colorado State Legislature the majority of local revenue for schools comes from property taxes and at the national level, 82% of funding for public schools comes from property tax.

When property tax revenue is decreased, school funding goes down, put simply, this policy will inadvertently harm our schools.

Finally, there are better alternatives to this regulation.

It is irresponsible for the government to do something when there are better ways of doing it.

For example, the state could place a cap on the amount of water that each household is allocated and then let us decide how to use the water if it's your property, you should control what happens to it.

Or we could pay people to get rid of grass-like Thornton, Highlands Ranch and Aurora are already doing successfully.

That incentive could apply to all residential areas, not just the new ones.

If there are better ways to save water, banning grass for new houses.

Doesn't make any sense, therefore this policy doesn't work, hurts our schools, and isn't even the best way to save water.

- Some of the best speech in debate students in Colorado on both sides of the story tonight and the question today is should the state of Colorado implement no grass restrictions on all new residential landscaping again in the affirmative?

Here's Graham.

You have two minutes for questions and cross-examination.

- Okay.

So, at the top of that your case you give us this idea that different alternatives to grass will take up more water.

What are some examples of plants that could be planted that would take up more water than grasses right now?

- Sure, so I gave you the example of ferns and Irises in my case.

But we have to recognize that home developers ultimately want to save money, meaning that they will default to things like concrete or Astroturf, and as I explained, we should be very concerned about the use of concrete, especially because it's sparing 8% of global emissions.

So just because we're getting rid of grass doesn't mean that a better alternative will replace it.

- Okay, so you also mentioned that home developers and homeowners want to save money.

If they don't have to pay to water their plants if they plant native grasses, wouldn't that mean that they're also saving money with that option?

- Not necessarily lots of native plants require care in other ways, and that's something that's key to emphasize in this round.

And again, if you want to save money and time, are you going to go for plants or something like concrete?

- Okay, and then at the bottom of your case you give us this example of cities within Colorado that are already paying to remove grass, such as Thornton and Aurora I believe you brought up.

So, how can you say those policies are being successful if they could also be replaced with less sustainable Like techniques?

- Yeah, so what I want to emphasize in that last point is that we can't do this policy if there are other ways of doing it that exist better.

So, what I'm suggesting here is that we pay people to replace their grass with something cheaper, or we cap the amount of water that homeowners have and then let them decide because ultimately it's their property and we should let them decide what is important for their family.

- Is it possible to do both of those things at once?

- Not necessarily, and that's what we have to look to, especially as we're considering that third argument.

- Alright, that's it for the questions, but Graham, now you have two minutes for a rebuttal.

Go for it.

- So, starting on the top of her case, she gives us idea that alternative substances to grass will use up more water, and then she gives examples of ferns and other plants.

But what I'm telling you is that native grasses to Colorado will be prioritized because both home developers and homeowners want to save money, and they want to pay less using water and these native plants will take up less water and thus less money.

Next they give you this idea of concrete and astroturf.

The problem I have with both of these examples is that a single policy on new developments within Colorado is not going to have enough of an impact.

Her New York Times piece of evidence says that carbon emissions make-- That's 8% of carbon emissions are taken out from concrete every year.

A little change within Denver's or Colorado's policy is not going to change that 8% numbered globally.

Also with Astroturf there are larger problems relating to plastic such as overproduction and overconsumption within our culture and the small amount of turf that will be put in isn't going to change that.

Next, she gives you this idea of property values going down and what I can tell you is that that doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing in today's housing market with house housing prices inflating and skyrocketing, we can see that lower housing prices and lower market value could lead to more low income individuals being able to afford housing within Colorado and within Denver.

That also leads into her impact of that.

If these people can get into cheaper houses, they will also be able to get into education that they might not have had without it, and then next on to the bottom of her case where she talks about better alternatives.

What I can tell you is that both of these things can happen in the same world.

We can have grass bans on new developments.

And by buyback grass from existing development at the same time, they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

So what you're saying is that that can actually benefit the side because we can benefit, we can benefit new housing with these native plants, along with existing developments.

- Graham Cummings from Denver East, thank you very much.

Kalina Kulig from George Washington.

Now we get to our Closings.

3 minutes to respond and close.

- So, my opponent describes in his case that our water usage is going to go down, but as I've proven decisively, that is not the case.

Instead, we will see our grass get replaced by other things that might require more water as he admitted during cross examination there is nothing in this resolution, that requires homeowners to replace grass with something that requires less water, nothing at all.

That means that his biggest impact talking about water usage is simply not guaranteed in any way under this resolution.

And with that being said, let's look at some of the impacts on the case that I presented in response to the idea that alternatives are worse, my opponent says that we will prioritize native grasses, but again, there is nothing here requiring people to prioritize these native plants, and if home developers want to save money as he's agreed, they might just use concrete.

Which is terrible for the climate.

He says that this is such a big problem and that there's no way that a small policy can do anything to impact it.

But I'll point out, that's essentially the logic on his entire case.

If this policy is really just small and local, then it's not going to do anything anyway.

But I would argue that even the small step is necessary to stopping climate change because we should be avoiding things like concrete, and astroturf at all costs.

Then on this idea that we're going to harm schools that say clearly the negative impact of this policy.

Our education funding, which is already low is going to be cut even more and there is no guarantee that home developers are going to build housing for low-income individuals, so that impact that he made on there actually falls and finally, the idea of better alternatives.

My opponent agrees that these alternatives are better.

But, he says that they can happen in the same world.

I disagree.

Why would we choose the worst way of doing something when there are so many better options?

Why forbid people from having grass?

If instead we could limit their water and let them decide?

And importantly, Denver business and industry according to Denver, Water uses the same amount of water as homeowners.

So why aren't they being asked to cut back?

And why are we watering massive golf courses but demanding that our tiny lawns disappear?

All of these show fatal flaws within this affirmative policy, and we can see that the negative is clearly the most upheld.

So as a brief overview of today's debate, the negative side is going to triumph because alternatives are grass like concrete and Astroturf are far worse.

The affirmative add cuts, funding for schools, and there are better alternatives.

- Kalina you will have to wrap it up there.

Thank you very much.

Now, finally, Graham you have one minute to make your closing.

Go for it.

- The most important thing you're seeing in this round is that my opponent is not quantifying any of her impacts.

She gives you these broad ideas of more water being used, concrete use being increased, plastic use being increased, but she can't tell you exactly how much these numbers are going to go up or how many people are going to be affected.

If you look onto my case.

I tell you exactly that because with my CSU evidence, 55% of residential water use-- goes towards lawn irrigation.

That's directly impacting important reservoirs within the United States.

For my CNN, Rachel Ramirez piece of evidence, we can see that Lake Powell is at 35% full and Lake Mead is at 32% that's super important, because when these reservoirs dry up, we'll see that my Drew connif piece of evidence from CNN is super important, because those that river provides 1 trillion of economic investment into different areas throughout the US.

- Graham, thank you very much.

Kalina thank you very much.

The spirited debate is here today.

Big issue.

Let's go to our panel of experts and get their thoughts on what they saw, Dominic take it away.

-Alan, Thank you, and Graham and Kalina both did a fantasitc job.

I think this is an issue really in the hearts and minds of a lot of people in Colorado.

So, I think you have a big audience listening to both your points which you make some great ones.

But, your work is not done.

We are going to ask you a couple of questions ourselves before we make our decision.

Marianne your first question for Graham.

- Graham, yes, um-- I was wondering about the--when you talk about the 55% of residential water being used for lawn irrigation.

Have you looked at what, how much?

What does that represents as a percentage of all water use?

- What I can tell you is that single family homes make up 7% or near 7% of all water usage within Colorado, and then you can see that that within single family homes 55% of that is going towards lawn irrigation, so that evens out to about 3% of our total water usage, which well, it may not sound like a big number.

When that impacts millions of people and millions of lives down the Colorado River, it becomes very important.

- Graham, I want to follow up with the point about other homeowners.

This is going to affect new homeowners.

Do homeowners that are not brought into this agreement of folks like me have had my own for 20 years, I'm in Highlands Ranch of people who want to buy a house with a lawn in front of it or a brand newer home with no grass in front of it?

Do I have an unfair advantage to all these folks who will be building houses in the near future if your resolution is adopted?

- That's a super important issue, but I wouldn't say that you will have an unfair advantage.

I would say that as these industries transition away from traditional grass and go towards more native grasses and sustainable resources we'll see that it will become cheaper to actually plant these things.

It will become more effective in the long term as maintenance goes down in cost per water goes down.

- Alright, Kalina you are not off the hook.

We have some questions for you.

Maryanne your first question for Kalina.

- Kalina you were very focused during your debate on the use of alternatives such as concrete, and Astroturf.

We know that some of these programs are already in place, not only in Colorado but in other states.

Are you aware of--Or can you talk to-- how--how often are concrete astroturf used as alternatives to grass?

- Yeah, so that's a great question, and what I can tell you on that is developers ultimately want to save money and cut costs as their developing these properties.

Because concrete is cheaper, I think we'll see it's used even more, especially if the alternatives are something like expensive or other native grasses.

So, concrete and astroturf because they require less maintenance and are kind of lazy options out will increase in their usage, which unfortunately is devastating for the environment.

- Kalina my question to you, is most of the time when new homes are built.

The choice of landscaping their responsibilities actually rested on the homeowner.

So if they're going to get the cheapest item and they all go to xeriscaping, and if xeriscaping is the majority of choice, does that negate most of the harms mentioned in your case?

- Yeah, so xeriscaping is actually something important to bring up.

But unfortunately, this policy doesn't have enough foresight to require that homeowners use xeriscaping.

So, there's no guarantee that homeowners will go for something like that when they have cheaper alternatives available to them like concrete or astroturf.

- Alan, there's a variety of developers in Colorado very anxious to watch this debate and hear these arguments.

Give us a couple of minutes we'll figure out a winner.

- Absolutely huge issue with water use problems and things of this nature.

We're going to give our panel a moment to consider who they felt won this debate that's going to give me a moment to let you know that this is a part of our expanded season of both sides of the story.

Our 2021 tournament is going to feature 12 total debates including a full consolation bracket.

So, you'll get a chance to see all of our students debate multiple times this fall to catch up on any episodes you can go to pbs12.org, and now let's put the pressure on our panel and get a decision.

Dominic, what do you say?

- Alan, I know we say it often ... fantastic debates, but here is-- we may have a little truth detector here.

This was a very difficult debate to pick a winner.

We both-- Graham and Kalina we want you both to know you did a fantastic job.

But our job is to pick a winner so we can move forward to our winner's bracket.

Kalina, we felt you offered very logical arguments, we also felt that you offered some really strong defense, and actually argued against your opponent's case very effectively in cross examination, but you both did a great job, but we're going to go with Kalina on this one.

Kalina, congratulations!

Move on to the winner's bracket.

- Kalina well done.

Congratulations to Kalina Kulig from George Washington High School.

Graham Cummings terrific job as well.

You both gave our viewers a wonderful debate tonight and you both had to be very proud.

So, Kalina you're going to now go on to compete against the winner from the debate featuring students from RangeView and Hinkley High Schools, and Graham don't worry, we're going to see you again in our consolation bracket debates and you will be back with another chance to move up.

Well, that's all the time we have for our program tonight.

I want to thank our excellent students for accepting our challenge and for participating in our debate.

I also want to thank our esteemed panel for sharing their thought and of course, we want to thank you for tuning in.

It's the support of viewers like you and our sponsors that helps to make this show a reality.

You can catch up on the past episodes of this program on pbs12.org and you can always catch me on CBS4 for all the latest news and information impacting Colorado as well.

For everybody here at PBS12, I'm Alan Gionet, thanks for watching and that is both sides of the story.

(Music)