A Pilbara water scarcity case study: stakeholder cards, a water use data table and a mine-and-township map on a table in red country
Year 7 · Unit 01 · Lesson 04

Scarcity Under the Sun

One idea must land: scarcity isn't “no water” — it's not enough for everyone who needs it. Somebody gives something up.

Lesson 3 ended with a prediction; today it gets answered — then complicated. Two dry years hit one Pilbara operation, the allocation drops 20%, and students become summit delegates who must find 3,900 ML of savings without breaking the township, the mine, or the river. Somebody gives something up. That’s the lesson.

Spark

The memory flash

Harvest Lesson 3’s prediction first (“where does a Pilbara mine find millions of litres?” — groundwater was the seed). Then show the Water Use Data table for five seconds, hide it, and have students rank the five uses from memory before checking. Scale it: 19,500 ML ≈ 7,800 Olympic pools, and ore processing alone is ≈ 64%.

The gap between what they remembered and what the data says is the hook — and a quiet lesson in why advisors write things down.
Core

Causes · problem · toolkit

Two kinds of cause, named plainly: nature’s (variability — the dry years Lesson 3 promised) and ours (growing demand). The problem: five competing claims on one shrinking pool — ask early, “who speaks for the river?” Then the real toolkit: recycle, substitute fit-for-purpose water, efficiency, restrictions, new sources.

Keep the toolkit tight — ten minutes at most. They’re about to discover every item in it by needing it.
Workshop

The Dry Year Summit

Teams of four, role cards dealt: Community · Mine Operations · Environment & River · Water Management (chair). The announcement lands: find 3,900 ML from the levers menu — every non-negotiable intact, every consequence written and owned, four signatures. Close with two teams presenting: same numbers, different pain.

Deals differ, and that’s the point. Ask the room which deal they’d sign — then ask who it hurts.
Land it

The delegate reports back

Four prompts that answer the curriculum descriptor in their own voice: one natural cause and one human cause; the problem proven with a person from their summit; the smartest fix defended; and the line from our deal I’d defend to the Premier.

Teacher intel

Who speaks for the river — and what happens downstream if nobody does?
Which line in the table is really safety in disguise? (Dust suppression.)
Is cutting production a water solution or a jobs problem — can it be both?
What would you check before trusting the recycling plant’s number?
Watch for“Scarcity = no rain” (demand is half the story) · “just use seawater” (energy, cost, distance) · “the environment line is optional” (river health underpins the licence to operate).
Running shortSkip formal signing and presentations; chairs report deals verbally. Protect the memory flash, one completed deal, and the exit ticket.
SupportLevers menu carries a worked example; give the chair role to a confident reader.
ExtendYear Three: another 1,950 ML with the easy levers spent. What breaks first — budget, river, or the deal itself?