NationStates

"The all businesses subcategory of environmental has two strengths: mild and strong."

Kenmoria wrote:"The all businesses subcategory of environmental has two strengths: mild and strong."

Thank you for bringing that up to my attention. Would it be appropriate for this proposal to fall under a mild subcategory?

Zone 71 wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:"The all businesses subcategory of environmental has two strengths: mild and strong."

Thank you for bringing that up to my attention. Would it be appropriate for this proposal to fall under a mild subcategory?

"Given the proposal has only two active clauses, that would be good."

(OOC: I've just noticed I posted the two strengths thing twice, sorry about that.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Zone 71 wrote:Thank you for bringing that up to my attention. Would it be appropriate for this proposal to fall under a mild subcategory?

"Given the proposal has only two active clauses, that would be good."

(OOC: I've just noticed I posted the two strengths thing twice, sorry about that.)

No problem. In sorry for missing your previous comment. And thank you for helping me with the category.

"I would add the word “include” after “to” in clause 6."

Kenmoria wrote:"I would add the word “include” after “to” in clause 6."

Thank you, grammar god

"Clause 5 still prohibits the disposal of water or biodegradable kelp into the ocean."

Kenmoria wrote:"Clause 5 still prohibits the disposal of water or biodegradable kelp into the ocean."

Thank you for catching that. I've changed it to focus on hazardous materials.

"In clause 7d, I would change “precision” into “precise”."

Kenmoria wrote:"In clause 7d, I would change “precision” into “precise”."

Thank you for your suggestion, GoG.

Hey great work on this! Im really interested in water and have been researching it as part of my PhD over the past 3 years, so I may have gone a little overboard here but I have a few potential suggestions. Im not sure where you are up to with the process and with edits so Ill just put down some of my ideas.

The previous resolution on Clear water was repealed in 2010
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=2861642#p2861642
This means that the WA has no resolution concerning water other than the resolution on transboundary resources. I would highlight this in a preamble. Stressing the need for a good resolution here. In particular in order to ensure compliance with other resolutions adopted by the WA. In particular highlighting:
1) the Quality in Health Services Resolution which establishes that national health authorities are responsible for eradication of endemic diseases and implementation of basic sanitation projects both of which can be severely compromised in the absence of clean water supply.
2) the Right to Adequate Sanitation Resolution which requires member nations to provide safe sanitation which can be compromised under situations of water scarcity.
3) Sustainable Fishing Act for which a freshwater shortage or serious water pollution can be detrimental to long-term viability of fish populations.
4) Wetland Protection Protocol which encourages member state to create and fund water management programs to mitigate impacts on and maintain quality of wetlands which could be impacted under situations of water scarcity.

I would potentially change the title to refer to "environmental freshwater and water supply shortages" or something in this direction where we are talking about water resources in terms of both freshwater in the environment as well as clean potable water supply.

For clause 1:
"Greywater" typically refers to wastewater. This may not be applicable for irrigation where potable water quality is typically used. I think what you mean by greywater in this context is "non-potable reuse". So for example taking household wastewater through a simple treatment process on site and then reusing it for toilet flushing or garden watering or car cleaning or something. In industry its quite common to reuse process water because you need a particular quality or you dont need more expensive potable water.

So when saying recycling rainwater it implies reusing it as in water reuse. I would just write rainwater harvesting.

for clause 2:
Monitoring water supply reservoirs is typically done on a much more regular basis than annually. You should have at least weekly data on reservoir levels although this is usually simply left to the operator to do and they are assigned the responsibility for sufficient monitoring and operation. They will most likely have daily if not hourly data. I would just say they should base their decisions off of monthly data at the least.

Two additional problems with monitoring.
1) what if there is insufficient capacity to effectively monitor? I would assign this to the JWRMP or the World Assembly Development Foundation (WADF) to make reviews of the need for capacity building in WA member states who ask for it. The World Health Authority could be involved to support monitoring of water related diseases.
2) what if the water resource is significantly outside the jurisdiction of the agency meant to monitor? Here we could appeal to the Transboundary Water Resources Resolution to say that as part of managing transboundary water resources where water supply is involved there must be transboundary water monitoring information made available.

For clause 3:
a: why just focus on blue water footprint? If you mention pollution in the preambs you want to talk about the total water footprint including blue (consumption), green (evapotranspiration) and grey (pollution). For most countries green water footprint is the dominant source of water consumption far outstripping industry and domestic.

for clause 5:
the key thing is long term integrated planning. If you build another reservoir you can store up more water and prevent a drought leading to supply shortages. Also there is no mention of integrate water resources management (IWRM). This is a big concept in water. I would definitely include that. Alternatively you may want to simplify 5 so that you simply clearly place the responsibility on national governments to ensure adequate water for sapiens and environmental needs. If they cannot deliver it then they need to have a way to get help from abroad quickly.

for clause 6:
this makes it sound like hazardous wastes released by business is bad but not by individuals. I also think the intentional aspect of it is too lenient. It should be strict liability. I would just "prohibits any releases of hazardous waste into any body of water". The question of what a hazardous waste is then becomes important but i guess a reasonable person can see what it is.

clause 7:
a: I expect the JWRMP will not have the resources. Maybe they coordinate the response with other WA agencies and bodies such as those mentioned throughout.
b: this will not be acceptable to any sovereignty loving country. I would say 'recommend' limits not 'set' limits.
c: Again i dont expect JWRMP to have the resources. This is really development assistance which the WADF could help with.
d: JWRMP and WADF can support national authorities in rolling out "precision irrigation technologies" or other technologies and techniques.

Let me know what you think about this. Am happy to help redraft if you put me as co-author!

I will post the next draft this weekend. I received a lot of help and commentary from Araraukar, and I hope to incorporate it into the coming draft.

However, before I post the next draft, I would like to hear what everyone thinks on this proposal, whether or not you would support the premise of it, and what you all would like to see in the coming draft.

"The second 'to' in the desiring clause is unnecessary."

Zone 71 wrote:I will post the next draft this weekend. I received a lot of help and commentary from Araraukar, and I hope to incorporate it into the coming draft.

However, before I post the next draft, I would like to hear what everyone thinks on this proposal, whether or not you would support the premise of it, and what you all would like to see in the coming draft.

(OOC: This proposal has my IC and OOC support, there isn't much I could see to be changed in the next draft, bar minor nitpicking.)

I would like to make it known that, even after my two months of inactivity on the World Assembly, I will continue to work on this proposal. I also want to apologize to the co-author, Araraukar, who has spent an unbelievable amount of time and effort in aiding, and essentially shaping, this proposal and its predecessor, "Protecting Freshwater from Manufacturing," out of sheer generosity. I would also like to apologize to the God of Grammar, Kenmoria, and others who have generously provided their input and personal opinions on this proposal.

I acknowledge that the amount of neglect I have put into this proposal is downright rude and imprudent and everyone has every reason to be angry at me. And if anyone wants to take back and remove whatever work or suggestions they have brought onto my proposal, I will respect these complaints and remove them from my proposal immediately. I hope to finally conclude the drafting process of this bill, publish it onto the World Assembly, and either see it pass or bring it back to the drawing board.

(OOC: It's nice to see you back, Zone 71.)

"Would clause 7b be applied solely with the consent of member states, or regardless of the nation's wishes due to the circumstances involved?"

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It's nice to see you back, Zone 71.)

"Would clause 7b be applied solely with the consent of member states, or regardless of the nation's wishes due to the circumstances involved?"

(OOC: Nice to see you again too, Grammar God)

While Clauses 7a and c are expressly applied if given consent by the member state, 7b would be enacted onto a member state regardless of the state's consent. I understand what a massive imposition it would be to overrule the authority of a member state, especially when dealing with an area as important and vital as drinking water. That is why 7b will only be enacted " in dire circumstances where the national freshwater and drinking supply is under a very real, severe threat wherein the public health is under harm," an instance clearly demonstrating that the member state - either by the fault of their own mismanagement or of conditions out of their reach such as weather - cannot manage such a severe issue.

OOC: Could you pretty please use "greywater" rather than "graywater"?

This resolution has the full support of the WAD from Narnia, believing clean water is an essential right.

Edit: Reading through more, I see you focus on monitoring, which is okay I guess (experts around my area say it can take years for freshwater systems to improve after measurementsare taken) & specifically agricultural irrigation & soil/water retention. The main problem from my understanding is nitrogen & phosphorus leaving fields due to A. Increased application (which I do not see any mention of, sorry if I missed) B. Not retaining or deactivating/using them before they enter the water supply. Irrigation & water retention could be problems in other areas, but agricultural water retention sounds wierd to me, usually you want to water to leave, just not with soil or chemicals.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Could you pretty please use "greywater" rather than "graywater"?

OOC: Give me graywater or give me death. (I'll change it.)

Snowman wrote:This resolution has the full support of the WAD from Narnia, believing clean water is an essential right.

Edit: Reading through more, I see you focus on monitoring, which is okay I guess (experts around my area say it can take years for freshwater systems to improve after measurementsare taken) & specifically agricultural irrigation & soil/water retention. The main problem from my understanding is nitrogen & phosphorus leaving fields due to A. Increased application (which I do not see any mention of, sorry if I missed) B. Not retaining or deactivating/using them before they enter the water supply. Irrigation & water retention could be problems in other areas, but agricultural water retention sounds wierd to me, usually you want to water to leave, just not with soil or chemicals.

OOC: It is an honor to receive the support of such a massive, prestigious region. Thank you so much, Snowman, and the region of Narnia! I also appreciate your commentary, and I will certainly look further into your concerns over my proposal's tackling of soil water retention and make appropriate changes in the next draft.

OOC: I'm going to review the current draft a couple of times to make sure it's a cohesive piece of legislation with minimal grammar mistakes - though I think the God of Grammar got it covered ;^) - and place the forum thread on "FINAL CALL."

"Acknowledging that, even today, the World Assembly bears witness to the devastating effects of freshwater shortages in some struggling nations within its hallowed halls"
There are no nations within the WA's hallowed halls - or at least if there are they must be very small nations.

"Convinced that leaving the issue of freshwater shortages unaddressed would exacerbate current water shortages in some member nations, and have undoubtedly tragic consequences to others in the near future"
Why will the tragic consequences be for (not to) nations other than those with exacerbated water shortages?

Clause 1 defines grey water with much fanfare but the definition is only then used in 5c. Why not strike 1 and replace 5c with something like "recycling runoff and sewage into a form that can be used for irrigation, cooling of factory equipment and other purposes not involving public consumption"?

In 2 "based off of estimates" is sloppy.

6 appears to address the business sector but permit the public sector to dump whatever it likes into the water supply. Fortunately this probably duplicates a prior resolution.

In 7 the verbs in the introduction and the bullet points don't agree.

OOC; I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow.

Bears Armed wrote:OOC; I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow.

OOC: Sounds great. I would love to get your opinion on this proposal. Thank you so much.

Zone 71 wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:OOC; I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow.

OOC: Sounds great. I would love to get your opinion on this proposal. Thank you so much.

OOC: Sorry, one more day's delay, because of NS being inaccessible earlier today...

Bears Armed wrote:

Zone 71 wrote:OOC: Sounds great. I would love to get your opinion on this proposal. Thank you so much.

OOC: Sorry, one more day's delay, because of NS being inaccessible earlier today...

OOC: All is good. Take your time. I don't intend to submit it until a couple days or weeks.