I'm not here to debate how effective water is as a firefighting measure so don't expect that in my argument. My argument is that in the context of firefighting or other use of water in California (farming, personal consumption...), this order will not be effective at solving any issues that stem from a lack of that water, and will likely exacerbate these issues long term.
So basically, if you wish to do this debate, it will be a debate of whether California's current approach or Trumps novel approach is more beneficial for California.
I'm not here to debate how effective water is as a firefighting measure so don't expect that in my argument. My argument is that in the context of firefighting or other use of water in California (farming, personal consumption...), this order will not be effective at solving any issues that stem from a lack of that water, and will likely exacerbate these issues long term.
So basically, if you wish to do this debate, it will be a debate of whether California's current approach or Trumps novel approach is more beneficial for California.