[PASSED] Clean Water Act

[South Soul]

(ooc:yes, taxes are the most important thing here when it makes ships invincible. lol)

THEY ARE

[Burninati0n]

"3) All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens."

Irrelevant. That clause is already covered by this one:
"1) The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception."

'Civilian' and 'citizen' are NOT interchangeable terms. As such, as long as water may conceivably serve a civilian, you can't do anything negative to it. So the ambassador from Ddreigiau has a point; it does leave the door open to invasions if one of your defensive options had been to dehydrate your opponent.

[Austin Scotland]

I voted for the bill however, I am now wondering why the World Assembly needs to regulate water as I feel that this is a regional issue not to be dealt with by the World Assembly.

I will be changing my vote tomorrow to NO if I am not convinced by then.

[The Matthew Islands]

Against.

I don't need the WA poking its nose into a regional mater thanks. I can take care of my own water supplies. The last thing the WA and the world needs is more expensive bureaucracy.

[Ashbary]

Even with a population of only five million I can identify that the WA has authority in some areas but there are some that should be left to regional and local governments. I don't need a water control group coming in every five minutes asking Bobbi-Joe and Mary if they have enough water to live. The only way you're looking at evidence they aren't alive is if they're dead. If people are dying chances are you have bigger problems to worry about. Lets let the water be water and allow resources to be filled by each nation. The WA doesn't need to serve as socialist central. Some issues are better left excluded from supervision, big brother.

Firmly Against.

[Embolalia]

"3) All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens."

Irrelevant. That clause is already covered by this one:
"1) The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception."

'Civilian' and 'citizen' are NOT interchangeable terms. As such, as long as water may conceivably serve a civilian, you can't do anything negative to it. So the ambassador from Ddreigiau has a point; it does leave the door open to invasions if one of your defensive options had been to dehydrate your opponent.

What you had asked, and what I was answering there, was this:

We ask the ambassador to kindly point out the statute in this resolution that specifies that I only have to supply water to citizens?

Clause 3 states in the clearest language possible that you must provide to citizens. There is no requirement to provide to anyone else. It does not exist. If you want to contest what I say, please quote what it is that you are actually contesting.
Furthermore, to address your current concern: Clause one clearly states that it is civilian water supplies that can not be contaminated. Civilian, as you rightly say, is not the same as citizen. Therefore, a water supply that serves non-civilian foreign citizens can be contaminated all you like.

[Ddreigiau]

correction: any water supply that cannot possibly serve civilians can be contaminated. which means none may, as civilians can be and often are embedded in military units as reporters, and can also visit military bases and other non-civilian installations via press passes.

[Toraston]

"3) All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens."

Irrelevant. That clause is already covered by this one:
"1) The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception."

'Civilian' and 'citizen' are NOT interchangeable terms. As such, as long as water may conceivably serve a civilian, you can't do anything negative to it. So the ambassador from Ddreigiau has a point; it does leave the door open to invasions if one of your defensive options had been to dehydrate your opponent.

Sir;

I, Oase Perpilov, Official Grammarian to the Delegation (I write Dr. Quicksilver's speeches and check their grammar), can tell you sir that citizen and civilian are interchangeable terms, as they both mean the same thing. They both mean someone who is a resident of a country.

Yours
Oase Perpilov (MLitt)
Official Grammarian to the Delegation
An Official of the Delegation

[Kivigrad]

You sir are mistaken. A citizen is someone who hold citizenship status of a country. A civilian is merely non military/leo personnel. The two terms are not interchangeable.

[Blauckistan]

A citizen is someone who hold citizenship status of a country.

And if illegal immigrants sneak into our countries and squander the water supply, that brings up the issue of national security. I guess this issue should also have sort of national security clause to prevent such actions.

[Austin Scotland]

A citizen is someone who hold citizenship status of a country.

And if illegal immigrants sneak into our countries and squander the water supply, that brings up the issue of national security. I guess this issue should also have sort of national security clause to prevent such actions.

Exactly. This also leads to more expense that our nations will have to pay for. I think that it is clear that this is a regional matter and that the WA should not be trying to enforce legislation upon other nations.

[Enn]

"3) All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens."

Irrelevant. That clause is already covered by this one:
"1) The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception."

'Civilian' and 'citizen' are NOT interchangeable terms. As such, as long as water may conceivably serve a civilian, you can't do anything negative to it. So the ambassador from Ddreigiau has a point; it does leave the door open to invasions if one of your defensive options had been to dehydrate your opponent.

Sir;

I, Oase Perpilov, Official Grammarian to the Delegation (I write Dr. Quicksilver's speeches and check their grammar), can tell you sir that citizen and civilian are interchangeable terms, as they both mean the same thing. They both mean someone who is a resident of a country.

Yours
Oase Perpilov (MLitt)
Official Grammarian to the Delegation
An Official of the Delegation

I have to question the depth of your studies of the English language. A cursory glance at any dictionary would show the distinctions between citizen and civilian.

I must also question your use of a single sentence to cover so many points. Surely your instructions in descriptive grammar would have included information packaging, and why such right-heavy structures become extremely difficult to understand.

Angelo Lanerik,
Acting WA Ambassador for Enn
BA (Hons) (Linguistics)

[Blauckistan]

I suggest that there should a resolution sent to the Security Council regarding such a post I made earlier in response to the delegate from Kivigrad:

A citizen is someone who hold citizenship status of a country.

And if illegal immigrants sneak into our countries and squander the water supply, that brings up the issue of national security. I guess this issue should also have sort of national security clause to prevent such actions.

I suggest a resolution gets written and put before a vote before the Security Council, stating with the potential passing of this act, there should be some requirements made to prevent illegal immigrants from squandering and diminishing our water supplies. Even if they came in undetected, none of us know if they're carrying diseases that can become water-borne or not, or whether they are purposely trying to ruin our economies by sneaking into our countries to "pursue a better life."

If this act passes, who would be willing to help co-sponsor this amendment for submission? (Feel free to send me a telegram.)

[Sanctaria]

I suggest a resolution gets written and put before a vote before the Security Council, stating with the potential passing of this act, there should be some requirements made to prevent illegal immigrants from squandering and diminishing our water supplies.

That's got nothing to with the Security Council, honoured Ambassador. We suggest you learn more about the World Assembly and its workings before making such silly suggestions in the future.

Yours.,

[The Buchiri]

The Nomadic Peoples of the Buchiri vote against the Clean Water Act in the belief that such respect for the importance of water can not be forced. The Buchiri are appalled that any distinguished nation would attack the water supply in order to gain military advantage.

Behzad Ganbaatar
Chief of Chiefs
of The Nomadic Peoples of the Buchiri

[Glen-Rhodes]

I suggest a resolution gets written and put before a vote before the Security Council, stating with the potential passing of this act, there should be some requirements made to prevent illegal immigrants from squandering and diminishing our water supplies. Even if they came in undetected, none of us know if they're carrying diseases that can become water-borne or not, or whether they are purposely trying to ruin our economies by sneaking into our countries to "pursue a better life."

Yes. Let's deny those dirty, dangerous illegals life-sustaining water. While we're add it, let's ban them from grocery markets and make it illegal for them to till soil!

- Dr. B. Castro

[Toraston]

I suggest a resolution gets written and put before a vote before the Security Council, stating with the potential passing of this act, there should be some requirements made to prevent illegal immigrants from squandering and diminishing our water supplies. Even if they came in undetected, none of us know if they're carrying diseases that can become water-borne or not, or whether they are purposely trying to ruin our economies by sneaking into our countries to "pursue a better life."

Yes. Let's deny those dirty, dangerous illegals life-sustaining water. While we're add it, let's ban them from grocery markets and make it illegal for them to till soil!

- Dr. B. Castro

Dr. Castro, Having said that, I now regard you with a large degree of wariness. Please inform me whether your last comment was made in a fit of rage with regards to what the preceeding delegate said, or whether the comment is a true reflection of your personal views

[Masucciania]

Fellow Delegates of the General Assembly:

The Confederacy of Masucciania rises in strong opposition to this proposed resolution.

While the Masuccianian Parliament supports both the good intentions behind and many of the clauses within this resolution, there are too many clauses which, if enacted, would violate state sovereignty and therefore warrant a vote of "AGAINST" by the Masuccianian delegation.

Section Two, Subsection One states that the International Bureau of Water Safety (IBWS) shall "[i]nstate minimum standards for water potability and safety." Such standards represent an infringement upon the state sovereignty of the various member states of the World Assembly. As such, it should be up to those government to establish water standards, if there are to be any at all.

In addition to Section Two, Subsection One, all of Section Three is a complete outrage in the same vein.

If these violations of state sovereignty were removed, then the Masuccianian government could get behind this proposal. Since that does not seem likely however, the Masuccianian delegation shall vote and urge the delegations of other member states of the General Assembly to vote "AGAINST" this proposed resolution.

The Confederacy of Masucciania respectfully yields the floor,

[Megady]

Read the "Clean Water Act" and thought it was great! voted for it!

[Zarquon Froods]

While we feel that this is a proposal that has good intentions, we also believe this to be a proposal that is too far reaching. Mandating that a country be able to supply a set amount of potable water to its citizens is a bit much. There are those among us that simply do not have the capabilities to produce potable water, and this document makes no mention of any intentions to aid those unable to make potable water available.

Simply put, keeping water free from chemical warfare is a good idea. Mandating that a nation MUST serve its citizens with a certain amount of drinking water is not. We are against.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Dr. Castro, Having said that, I now regard you with a large degree of wariness. Please inform me whether your last comment was made in a fit of rage with regards to what the preceeding delegate said, or whether the comment is a true reflection of your personal views

I think my work speaks for itself, but, yes, it was sarcasm.

- Dr. B. Castro

[Corbyn Island]

Corbyn Island, as part of its commitment to greater equality and living standards security, was honoured to offer the motion its vote and full support.

[Corbyn Island]

Corbyn Island, as part of its commitment to greater equality and living standards security, was honoured to offer the motion its vote and full support.

[Trecdom2]

This is how we interpret the "intentional contamination"

If we dump chemicals into the water to somehow affect it we are in violation of the regulation. However, if we sink several enemy vessels which causes oil and/or other contaminants to enter the water we are not in violation.


Could we physically prevent water from reaching our enemies and not violate the resolution?

[Krioval]

Could we physically prevent water from reaching our enemies and not violate the resolution?

You mean like stopping it from raining? Not only should that not violate this resolution, but it should make you very valuable to the professional wedding circuit.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval