Early Drafting: Repeal of Clean Water Act

Just pre-emptively putting this thread up here so that I can think about where I want to start on this one. On the off-chance it doesn't pass, we can just delete the thread.

Quote :

RECOGNIZING the importance of access to water;

ALARMED that many water supplies may be contaminated or otherwise not potable;

SHOCKED that contamination of water supplies may be used as a military tactic;

The World Assembly hereby resolves that:

1) The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception.

2) The International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) shall be established, and shall:
i) Instate minimum standards for water potability and safety,
ii) Research and collect information from member states on methods for water production, purification, and conservation,
iii) Provide access to this information to all member states,
iv) Assist member states in finding and obtaining sources of water, and
v) Assist in the creation of international water sharing schemes, where such is mutually agreeable to the nations involved.

3) All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens.
i) Such an amount shall be no less than that required for the healthy survival of the citizens.
ii) Such water must meet the minimum standards as instated by IBWS.
iii) Nations may contract such provision to administrative subdivisions, private corporations, or individuals, provided such does not impede access.
iv) Nations may charge reasonable amounts for water usage, provided such does not impede access.
v) Nations must provide subsidy, reimbursement, or other financial assistance where necessary to ensure all their citizens can afford access to a minimal amount of water.

4) Each nation may determine the following for itself, provided all other provisions of this act are met:
i) Methods for production and distribution of water,
ii) Processes and chemicals used for purification of water,
iii) Usage of chemical additives for public health, and
iv) Water usage, conservation, and rationing regulations.

5) Nations will be strongly encouraged to educate their citizens about the importance of, and methods for, water conservation.

List of delegate votes on this one for use later:
Darkesia (166), Nation of Quebec (93), Texina (69), Ile Royale (68), Schlemeils (50), Copenhagen Metropolis (38), NewTexas (31), BearNation (30), Drinent (30), Drumtroddan (29), Wullamudulla (25), East Hylia (22), Caiomhin (16), Aridiya (15), Asakura-backup (12), Tinis (10), Nullarni (9), Kivigrad (9), Grays Harbor (9), The Warpath (, Panzersharkcat (7), Raludcia (7), Right-Wing _America (7), Dravoria (6), City of Norfolk (6), Architeuthis (6), Tiny_Thongs (5), Glen-Rhodes (5), Tonyal (5), Arcornia (5), Romanelia (5), Kleinekatzen (5), The Tides Destiny (4), Runway Magazine (4), Ethiatica (4), Syrillia (4), Adeiatic (3), Supreme Royal States (3), Mostrov (3), Ugasolva (3), Wencee (3), Ruges followers (3), TheRoundHouseKick (3), Echolilia (3), Azzante (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Zhuberano (2), Medved (2), Vanerian (2), Manavara (2), Dun veS (2), Teronial (2), Gerst (2), Shadow25 (2), Politania (2), Barurot (2), Dagnia (2), Cold Archivia (2), Flibbleites (2), Herpa Derp (2), Arod Islands (2), New Izumo (2), Matoaca (2), Ra of Stargate (2), Geografika (2), Oriskany Falls (2), Redrake (2), New Tyrus (2), Beta Blockers (2), South Titania (53), Imagey Nation (, Krulltopia (75)

Previously, you voted against the WA proposal "Clean Water Act."

The repeal effort needs your support! Please approve the repeal proposal ("Repeal "Clean Water Act"") here:
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/council=0/start=0

OK, argument list. I miss anything Rut? I'll arrange it into a repeal as soon as we decide we've covered everything.

1 - Unclear overuse of the word 'contamination.'
2 - Generally vague as far as application of the various statutes. (Going so far as to outlaw industry and war with liberal interpretation. Also seems to outlaw the 'contamination' of any water at all.)
3 - Actually does nothing as far as water supply is concerned; doesn't coordinate humanitarian efforts, set up some sort of fund, or even attempt to address poor, drought-ridden nations. This places it well within the bounds of 'feel-good' legislation.
4 - Its 'without exception' clause seems rather unfounded in light of the vague nature of the resolution, putting WA nations in danger if attacked by sea.
5 - Its author, in debate of these points, consistently offers his own interpretation of the legislation as argument, implying that the document itself is in fact too vague and not well defined.
6 - The document seems to be poorer than the previously repealed version.
7 - Clause 3v requires nations to provide the means for every citizen to obtain adequate water. Nations with reasonable privacy measures, and guided by laws and statutes will not have the ability to ensure that the assistance provided is actually used to obtain water. This is also the closest the act comes to actually trying to supply water to beings that may been lacking it.

I think you got it.

(EDITS IN RED!)

Category/strength: REPEAL

Repeal "Clean Water Act"

The World Assembly

APPLAUDS the noble intent behind the Clean Water Act
CONCURS with the basic principles underlying the Clean Water Act
DISMAYED that the Clean Water Act did not address the organization of international efforts to relieve poor, drought-ridden nations, or even attempt to require other nations to recognize the plight of these nations

RECOGNIZES with dismay the many shortcomings of the resolution:

1) The resolution is disappointingly vague on important points including, but not limited to:
A) It's first clause, which states without further elaboration, "The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception."
- Further elaboration as to the meaning of 'contamination,' or 'conceivably serve civilians' is absent from the legislation, leaving in doubt what water supplies are affected by the resolution, and what is considered 'contamination' with regards to a water supply.
- The use of nuclear weapons is clearly prohibited by this act, which is completely apart from the intent of the resolution.
B) Its statement that the clause applies 'without exception' seems absurd considering its vague nature.
C) It seems to be developed less than the previously repealed version.
C) The use of the word 'civilian' in clause 1 seems misplaced, as the rest of the resolution deals with mandates concerning only 'citizens' of member nations, rather than civilians in general.

2) The resolution is also sadly lacking any clauses that attempt to address possible underlying causes of the lack of water.
A) It does not attempt to organize international efforts to relieve poor, drought-ridden nations, or even attempt to require other nations to recognize the plight of these nations.
[strike]B) Because the resolution doesn't coordinate international humanitarian efforts, or set up some sort of international fund, but sticks to mandating legislation within member nations, it raises issues with national sovereignty.
- This places it clearly within the category of 'feel-good' legislation.

3) Its section labeled '3', clause 'iv', which states: "Nations may charge reasonable amounts for water usage, provided such does not impede access."
A) The clause seems to be contradictory, as any price charged for water usage would impede access.
B) By preventing nations from impeding access to water, the resolution greatly reduces the ability of nations to conserve water in times of sustained drought.

4) Its section labeled '3', clause 'v,' which requires nations to provide aid to those lacking clean water.
A) The legislation does not address the fact that many nations do not have the power to ensure that the aid provided is actually used to obtain clean water.

HEREBY renders GA Resolution #105, "Clean Water Act" null and void.

Suggestions:

Drop 1C. Has no relevance.

Section 2 is also irrelevant. Attack the legislation that's there. Not what should be there.

That's what I'd do right off.

I would also point out the difference between Citizen and Civilian there. You posted that argument in the NS GA thread. Bring it here too.

OK. I can see dropping 1C, but I think section two has merit. I was trying to place the legislation clearly in the 'feel-good' category with that one. Should I reword it? Rewrite it? Do you have a better way to do that? If that section needs to be dropped, I'll do it later.

I'll add that other part as well.

Section 2, unfortunately, will render the repeal illegal. The repeal cannot address things that are not in the original legislation like that. What you can do is this:

Quote :

APPLAUDS the noble intent behind the Clean Water Act
CONCURS with the basic principles underlying the Clean Water Act
DISMAYED that the Clean Water Act did not address the organization of international efforts to relieve poor, drought-ridden nations, or even attempt to require other nations to recognize the plight of these nations

To invoke National Sovereignty is to risk having the repeal called as illegal.

Category/strength: REPEAL

Repeal "Clean Water Act"

The World Assembly

APPLAUDS the noble intent behind the Clean Water Act
CONCURS with the basic principles underlying the Clean Water Act
DISMAYED that the Clean Water Act did not address the organization of international efforts to relieve poor, drought-ridden nations, or even attempt to require other nations to recognize the plight of these nations

RECOGNIZES with dismay the many shortcomings of the resolution:

1) The resolution is disappointingly vague on important points including, but not limited to:
A) It's first clause, which states without further elaboration, "The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception."
- Further elaboration as to the meaning of 'contamination,' or 'conceivably serve civilians' is absent from the legislation, leaving in doubt what water supplies are affected by the resolution, and what is considered 'contamination' with regards to a water supply.
- The use of nuclear weapons is clearly prohibited by this act, which is completely apart from the intent of the resolution.
B) Its statement that the clause applies 'without exception' seems absurd considering its vague nature.
C) The use of the word 'civilian' in clause 1 seems misplaced, as the rest of the resolution deals with mandates concerning only 'citizens' of member nations, rather than civilians in general.

2) Its section labeled '3', clause 'iv', which states: "Nations may charge reasonable amounts for water usage, provided such does not impede access."
A) The clause seems to be contradictory, as any price charged for water usage would impede access.
B) By preventing nations from impeding access to water, the resolution greatly reduces the ability of nations to conserve water in times of sustained drought.

3) Its section labeled '3', clause 'v,' which requires nations to provide aid to those lacking clean water.
A) The legislation does not address the fact that many nations do not have the power to ensure that the aid provided is actually used to obtain clean water.

HEREBY renders GA Resolution #105, "Clean Water Act" null and void.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Ready to post on the GA forums when the act passes?