Route Front: Water Allocation
A dispute front over whether scarce water should prioritize survival redundancy, expansion, ecology, or civic trust. This is not a new faction. It is a practical dispute surface where existing factions make different but understandable claims.
Competing Claims
Each side can point to a real survival need. The route front becomes useful when the player must choose a local policy, accept a temporary cost, and later see that choice reflected in global indicators or chronicle records.
Player Decision
A good faction choice should not ask whether one side is good and another evil. It should ask which risk the sector is willing to carry now, which risk is exported to neighboring sectors, and which record future citizens will be able to audit.
Audit Requirement
Every water allocation choice should publish the source of water, the redundancy sacrificed or protected, the sectors affected downstream, and the chronicle record that will later explain the decision.
<!-- issue-front-package:start -->
Issue Front Package
Route Philosophy
Water Allocation is a dispute surface, not a new faction. It gathers existing factions around one operational decision that the player can understand and audit.
Supported Facilities
The front supports evidence-rich choices: one season anchor, one regional pressure, one technical facility, and one public record.
Opposed Failure Mode
It resists fake consensus. If all sides appear to agree, the entry should reveal which cost has been hidden.
Linked Regions
- `world/dry-basin`
Linked Seasons
- `seasons/season-03-water-rights-hearing`
Public Records
- `chronicle/cycle-053-water-rights-hearing`
Demo Choice Hook
Use Water Allocation as a Demo choice card with two credible routes, one visible cost, and one future chronicle consequence.
Navigation Network
- `tech/hydrological-cycle`
<!-- issue-front-package:end -->
