The films Erin Brockovich and Who Owns Water revolved around the ethics of water. Both of these films highlight dilemmas that have, to some extent, been regionally resolved (the case against Pacific Gas and Electric was settled in 1996, GA won a suits in 2021 that effectively killed FL and AL claims and allowed Atlanta municipal water use of Lake Lanier was reasonable). However, current drought conditions in the US west and subsequent water use ensure that the ethical dilemmas around water continue. This is particularly relevant to large-scale river impoundments, as Lake Mead and Lake Powell on the Colorado river, the country's two largest reservoirs, are currently at historic and unprecedented low levels. This has led to water shortages and restrictions in Nevada, Arizona and California, highly reminiscent of the ACF scenario. Based on these examples (or perhaps other regional examples), consider the ethical dilemmas from anthropocentric and biocentric points of view. Specifically: 1. How can we balance human water consumption and biodiversity (biocentric)? 2. Who are the stakeholders in such scenarios? Should any stakeholder have more say than another? Why? (anthropocentric) 3. How do we solve these recurring problems? From your perspective, who/what has the "moral high ground" and why? Can we preserve individual rights and protect resources for the "greater good" simultaneously?