[PASSED] Clean Water Act

[Scalietti]

I disagree with 3-v) with regards to the reimbursement and financial assistance method. I don't believe the government of any nation should 'hand' money to the less-fortunate in the hope they will use the money to pay the water bill. Wouldn't a varied water usage rate dependent on income be more efficient, or would that be classified as a reimbursement?

However, the nation of Scalietti is for this resolution, as it is virtually harmless.

[Kivigrad]

While the Democratic Republic of Kivigrad understands the importance of making sure clean water is readily available, and agrees that contaminating a countries water source during war is a cowardice act, we disagree with the social assistance portions of the resolution.

The government is here to maintain infrastructure, not guarantee a way a life. Water sadly isn't free, and handouts are something we do not condone. If you can't provide for yourself, the government isn't going to provide for you. We will make water readily available to our citizens, but we won't give it away, nor will we assistant in payment for water.

OOC - I realize I'm not currently in the WA, I had to refound my nation, I've already reapplied.

[Embolalia]

Everybody needs water...if you aren't making sure your people have clean water to drink we feel your country's priorities are wildly askew.

We're voting for this one. It just makes sense.

Thank you. The Embolalian delegation applauds the sensibility of the Studean delegation. I think this is just the right answer to a number of concerns people have raised.

EDIT: There is, to answer those unhappy with 3v., nothing to say that you have to provide a monetary reimbursement specifically. If you want, you can simply provide the water itself at an affordable price; this being a subsidy as allowed under 3v.

[Ddreigiau]

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau is wholly against this resolution, on the grounds that the wording is too vague and allows for too many loopholes.
This is evident supremely in the first clause, which effectively requires a nation to supply water to its invaders (cannot destroy any part of water grid and must provide easily taken water shipments to civvies in occupied territory), should such an invasion occur. This also bans the sinking of any naval ship, the destruction of near-shore bases, and the firing of weapons by our Coast Guard, as lead and other materials would "pollute" the water source. This resolution is too restrictive in teh event of war or common anti-drug trafficking operations.

The effect of this would be similar to forcing the Allied forces of the Second World War to ship water trucks to the invading Nazi hordes, while at the same time preventing them from sinking their U-boats and ensuring that the Bismark and Tirpitz sailed unchallenged, as they were not under the jurisdiction of just government. Nazi Germany was ahead of the US in nuclear weapons development, and was only set back because the local Resistance forces sunk the ferry containing the only heavy water manufacturing parts. The battle for North Africa was won because Allied interdiction forces sunk more than 90% of the supply ships bound for Rommel's force. what would happen to Montgomery? He'd be a name barely making the history books, and then only as another triumph of the Desert Fox. Alexander? the same. The common person would never know the name Eisenhower, nor Patton. fewer people would know any of those four than now know the name Dönitz.
The US would have had to begin a land invasion of Japan, at the cost of an estimated 1,000,000 casualties just on the Allied side.
The effect of this may have - no, definitely WOULD have lost the war, making the very formation of the UN and later the World Assembly impossible. Germany would have used atomic weapons on Allied forces and the British Isles at the first opportunity, and likely later on the United States. They may then have shared the technology with Japan, enabling them to use an atomic bomb on San Diego, the primary shipyards of the Pacific theater of war, as well as Pearl Harbor and other West Coast cities.

To summarize, this resolution would prohibit the sinking or damaging of any naval ship no matter the circumstances including when in a war against a non-WA member nation, would give opposing bases that lie near the shore or bank of a river (or even sit above groundwater) a cloak of invincibility from attack, would prevent the standard Coast Guard interdiction operations (firing into the water would technically be "contaminating"), and ensure that invaders have easy access to water, either through easily attacked water shipments or through the prevention of the destruction of the water grid.

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau simply cannot vote for such a resolution that restricts defensive measures "without exception", and shall refuse to comply with such resolution until it is amended satisfactorily.

[Nova Prutenia]

A prime example of a resolution that covers ground best left to domestic governments.

[Kivigrad]

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau is wholly against this resolution, on the grounds that the wording is too vague and allows for too many loopholes.
This is evident supremely in the first clause, which requires a nation to supply water to its invaders, should such an invasion occur. This also bans the sinking of any naval ship, the destruction of near-shore bases, and the firing of weapons by our Coast Guard, as lead and other materials would "pollute" the water source. This resolution is too restrictive in teh event of war or common anti-drug trafficking operations.

The effect of this would be similar to forcing the Allied forces of the Second World War to ship water trucks to the invading Nazi hordes, while at the same time preventing them from sinking their U-boats and ensuring that the Bismark and Tirpitz sailed unchallenged, as they were not under the jurisdiction of just government. Nazi Germany was ahead of the US in nuclear weapons development, and was only set back because the local Resistance forces sunk the ferry containing the only heavy water manufacturing parts. The battle for North Africa was won because Allied interdiction forces sunk more than 90% of the supply ships bound for Rommel's force. what would happen to Montgomery? He'd be a name barely making the history books, and then only as another triumph of the Desert Fox. Alexander? the same. The common person would never know the name Eisenhower, nor Patton. fewer people would know any of those four than now know the name Dönitz.
The US would have had to begin a land invasion of Japan, at the cost of an estimated 1,000,000 casualties just on the Allied side.
The effect of this may have - no, definitely WOULD have lost the war, making the very formation of the UN and later the World Assembly impossible. Germany would have used atomic weapons on Allied forces and the British Isles at the first opportunity, and likely later on the United States. They may then have shared the technology with Japan, enabling them to use an atomic bomb on San Diego, the primary shipyards of the Pacific theater of war, as well as Pearl Harbor and other West Coast cities.

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau simply cannot vote for such a resolution that restricts defensive measures "without exception".

The Commander in Chief's advisers some how overlooked this! The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water, but will NOT comply with this resolution in its entirety, our national defense is far too important.

[Ddreigiau]

ooc: rereading my post, it seems like that arguement may very well kill the act.

[Blauckistan]

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.

I may have already voted in support impulsively, but will more than likely change my vote if I cannot get credible enough answers before the vote closure.

1) In section 3, it states that all WA nations "must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens." (In my current status, I have a population of 5 million citizens.) What is the acceptable amount of water for such a nation? I do not intend to treat my citizens like third-world citizens and give them next to nothing!

2) In section 3, chapter 1, potable water "must meet" IBWS' minimum standards. I may be new to this, but I would appreciate some information on what IBWS' standards are for potable water. I don't want my citizens drinking water that, even with minimum requirements, could kill them.

3) In section 3, chapter 4, nations "may charge reasonable amounts for water usage". Some nations are smaller than mine, but then there are nations larger, not to mention there may be the instances of class where the rich class can afford ungodly amounts of water, while the poor can only afford water for about one week a month. I dare ask, what is an acceptable price for all nations, without resorting to classes or whether a person can afford or budget it?

[Embolalia]

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau is wholly against this resolution, on the grounds that the wording is too vague and allows for too many loopholes.
This is evident supremely in the first clause, which requires a nation to supply water to its invaders, should such an invasion occur. This also bans the sinking of any naval ship, the destruction of near-shore bases, and the firing of weapons by our Coast Guard, as lead and other materials would "pollute" the water source. This resolution is too restrictive in teh event of war or common anti-drug trafficking operations.

The effect of this would be similar to forcing the Allied forces of the Second World War to ship water trucks to the invading Nazi hordes, while at the same time preventing them from sinking their U-boats and ensuring that the Bismark and Tirpitz sailed unchallenged, as they were not under the jurisdiction of just government. Nazi Germany was ahead of the US in nuclear weapons development, and was only set back because the local Resistance forces sunk the ferry containing the only heavy water manufacturing parts. The battle for North Africa was won because Allied interdiction forces sunk more than 90% of the supply ships bound for Rommel's force. what would happen to Montgomery? He'd be a name barely making the history books, and then only as another triumph of the Desert Fox. Alexander? the same. The common person would never know the name Eisenhower, nor Patton. fewer people would know any of those four than now know the name Dönitz.
The US would have had to begin a land invasion of Japan, at the cost of an estimated 1,000,000 casualties just on the Allied side.
The effect of this may have - no, definitely WOULD have lost the war, making the very formation of the UN and later the World Assembly impossible. Germany would have used atomic weapons on Allied forces and the British Isles at the first opportunity, and likely later on the United States. They may then have shared the technology with Japan, enabling them to use an atomic bomb on San Diego, the primary shipyards of the Pacific theater of war, as well as Pearl Harbor and other West Coast cities.

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau simply cannot vote for such a resolution that restricts defensive measures "without exception".

What? Barring your RL reference, where does it say you have to provide water to your enemies? It says you can't intentionally contaminate their civilian, and it specifies civilian, water supplies. I'm also unsure what anti-drug tactics you're using that require the intentional contamination of civilian water supplies.

The Commander in Chief's advisers some how overlooked this! The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water, but will NOT comply with this resolution in its entirety, our national defense is far too important.

You have to comply. There is no choice; if you are in the WA, you comply with all the resolutions in their entirety.

[Embolalia]

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.

I may have already voted in support impulsively, but will more than likely change my vote if I cannot get credible enough answers before the vote closure.

1) In section 3, it states that all WA nations "must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens." (In my current status, I have a population of 5 million citizens.) What is the acceptable amount of water for such a nation? I do not intend to treat my citizens like third-world citizens and give them next to nothing!

That would be "no less than that required for the healthy survival of the citizens." So if, to be healthy, your citizens require one liter per day, you must provide at least one liter per day. You can, of course, provide more.

2) In section 3, chapter 1, potable water "must meet" IBWS' minimum standards. I may be new to this, but I would appreciate some information on what IBWS' standards are for potable water. I don't want my citizens drinking water that, even with minimum requirements, could kill them.

Section 2 establishes the International Bureau of Water Safety, or IBWS, which will in turn determine these standards. You are, again, free to have higher standards for your water.

3) In section 3, chapter 4, nations "may charge reasonable amounts for water usage". Some nations are smaller than mine, but then there are nations larger, not to mention there may be the instances of class where the rich class can afford ungodly amounts of water, while the poor can only afford water for about one week a month. I dare ask, what is an acceptable price for all nations, without resorting to classes or whether a person can afford or budget it?

There is no single price across all nations. It merely needs to be reasonable, such determination being up to the individual nation. However, it must by this resolution be affordable. It is, again, up to the nation how it is made affordable.

[Blauckistan]

That would be "no less than that required for the healthy survival of the citizens." So if, to be healthy, your citizens require one liter per day, you must provide at least one liter per day. You can, of course, provide more.

Section 2 establishes the International Bureau of Water Safety, or IBWS, which will in turn determine these standards. You are, again, free to have higher standards for your water.

There is no single price across all nations. It merely needs to be reasonable, such determination being up to the individual nation. However, it must by this resolution be affordable. It is, again, up to the nation how it is made affordable.

Thanks for the clarifications. I'll retain my vote and then implement some sort of additional standards for my nation.

[Toraston]

A prime example of a resolution that covers ground best left to domestic governments.

Sometimes, ambassador, national governments overlook such important necessities such as the provision of clean water - our own Government, whilst currently sending the Rights of the Orphaned Child bill through the Houses of National Representation, completely overlooked this Resolution until a few days ago. If a National Government overlooks such important resolutions, then it is te Assembly's right and duty to ensure that these necessities are provided for through intergovernmental legislation.

So you see, the Assembly is for the international good.

I rest my case and await responses.

Yours, with honour

Dr. Ivan Quicksilver

[Kivigrad]

The Commander in Chief's advisers some how overlooked this! The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water, but will NOT comply with this resolution in its entirety, our national defense is far too important.

You have to comply. There is no choice; if you are in the WA, you comply with all the resolutions in their entirety.

I can roleplay my nation to not comply. IRL nations break UN mandate all the time.

[Greenlandic People]

The Commander in Chief's advisers some how overlooked this! The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water, but will NOT comply with this resolution in its entirety, our national defense is far too important.

You have to comply. There is no choice; if you are in the WA, you comply with all the resolutions in their entirety.

I can roleplay my nation to not comply. IRL nations break UN mandate all the time.

You can roleplay defiance, but the resolution with still affect your national stats in-game.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You can roleplay defiance, but the resolution with still affect your national stats in-game.

OOC: Yes, yes, yes! Many people forget this, so they dismiss the idea that nations will simply not comply. It can get a bit annoying for those of us who like to keep the World Assembly as realistic as possible.

[Kivigrad]

OOC: Do they actually affect in game stats? According to different calculators and what no, no money is spent on anything except my 3 primary items, Defense, Law and Order, and Commerce. How do WA resolutions affect my stats?


IC:


The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water and will make it readily available for its citizens, and will never purposely contaminate a civilian water source, but during times of war, or during war trials, munitions may miss their targets, etc. and get into a water supply, this is simply unavoidable.

[Ddreigiau]

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau is wholly against this resolution, on the grounds that the wording is too vague and allows for too many loopholes.
This is evident supremely in the first clause, which requires a nation to supply water to its invaders, should such an invasion occur. This also bans the sinking of any naval ship, the destruction of near-shore bases, and the firing of weapons by our Coast Guard, as lead and other materials would "pollute" the water source. This resolution is too restrictive in the event of war or common anti-drug trafficking operations.

The effect of this would be similar to forcing the Allied forces of the Second World War to ship water trucks to the invading Nazi hordes, while at the same time preventing them from sinking their U-boats and ensuring that the Bismark and Tirpitz sailed unchallenged, as they were not under the jurisdiction of just government. Nazi Germany was ahead of the US in nuclear weapons development, and was only set back because the local Resistance forces sunk the ferry containing the only heavy water manufacturing parts. The battle for North Africa was won because Allied interdiction forces sunk more than 90% of the supply ships bound for Rommel's force. what would happen to Montgomery? He'd be a name barely making the history books, and then only as another triumph of the Desert Fox. Alexander? the same. The common person would never know the name Eisenhower, nor Patton. fewer people would know any of those four than now know the name Dönitz.
The US would have had to begin a land invasion of Japan, at the cost of an estimated 1,000,000 casualties just on the Allied side.
The effect of this may have - no, definitely WOULD have lost the war, making the very formation of the UN and later the World Assembly impossible. Germany would have used atomic weapons on Allied forces and the British Isles at the first opportunity, and likely later on the United States. They may then have shared the technology with Japan, enabling them to use an atomic bomb on San Diego, the primary shipyards of the Pacific theater of war, as well as Pearl Harbor and other West Coast cities.

The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau simply cannot vote for such a resolution that restricts defensive measures "without exception".

What? Barring your RL reference, where does it say you have to provide water to your enemies? It says you can't intentionally contaminate their civilian, and it specifies civilian, water supplies. I'm also unsure what anti-drug tactics you're using that require the intentional contamination of civilian water supplies.

By requiring that a nation ensure water is supplied to its citizenry, it opens the door for invading forces to abuse that. They may intercept H20 shipments for use by civilians in occupied territory, and no part of the water grid may be destroyed with the intent to deny easy water access to invading forces.
Anti-drug tactics such as firing on "Go-fast" boats that refuse to comply with Coast Guard directives. Standard Operating Procedure is to fire warning shots across the bow - lead bullets. Even other bullet materials are harmful to water supplies, no matter how minute that harm may be, but the clause specifically and directly emphasizes "without exception". This would also mean that water may not be turned off in the case of hostage situations, again part of the S.O.P. of many nations, including Ddreigiau, The United States, Russia, Britian, Finland, Germany, etc.
There is also the issues of enabling wonton destruction by naval ships firing onto the shore, of preventing the damaging of near-shore bases (including "boomer" (nuclear weapon-carrying) submarine bases, drydocks, and naval yards), and of preventing joint allied naval exercises.

Any munitions that are ultimately end up in the water are effectively banned by this.

That's check. your move, Embolalia

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: Do they actually affect in game stats? According to different calculators and what no, no money is spent on anything except my 3 primary items, Defense, Law and Order, and Commerce. How do WA resolutions affect my stats?

OOC: Although not 100% reliable, this NSWiki page explains stats effects.

[South Soul]

I ask that you all vote no this act will raise taxes and is very ill formed

[Ddreigiau]

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

[Embolalia]

What? Barring your RL reference, where does it say you have to provide water to your enemies? It says you can't intentionally contaminate their civilian, and it specifies civilian, water supplies. I'm also unsure what anti-drug tactics you're using that require the intentional contamination of civilian water supplies.

By requiring that a nation ensure water is supplied to its citizenry, it opens the door for invading forces to abuse that. They may intercept H20 shipments for use by civilians in occupied territory, and no part of the water grid may be destroyed with the intent to deny easy water access to invading forces.
Anti-drug tactics such as firing on "Go-fast" boats that refuse to comply with Coast Guard directives. Standard Operating Procedure is to fire warning shots across the bow - lead bullets. Even other bullet materials are harmful to water supplies, no matter how minute that harm may be, but the clause specifically and directly emphasizes "without exception". This would also mean that water may not be turned off in the case of hostage situations, again part of the S.O.P. of many nations, including Ddreigiau, The United States, Russia, Britian, Finland, Germany, etc.
There is also the issues of enabling wonton destruction by naval ships firing onto the shore, of preventing the damaging of near-shore bases (including "boomer" (nuclear weapon-carrying) submarine bases, drydocks, and naval yards), and of preventing joint allied naval exercises.

Any munitions that are ultimately end up in the water are effectively banned by this.

That's check. your move, Embolalia[/quote]
"Oh, for the love of-" "Civil, Gwaredd!", an aide whispers frantically in the ambassador's ear. "You already nearly turned away voters for going off the rails last time."
"Right," Ambassador LLwyd sighed. "I just don't understand where they're getting this from." He stepped back up to the podium.
"The resolution requires a national government to supply water to its citizens. The opposing military forces are not citizens of a nation, unless you have truly bizarre citizenship laws. Therefore, you do not have to provide water to enemy troops.
"The proposal bars, and I quote, 'The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians'. I have said before, and I will say again. The noun contamination is operated upon by the word intentional. Therefore, it is the contamination that must be intentional. In other words, the contamination can not be accidental, or an unintended side effect of another action.
"Furthermore, your drug trafficking example is truly inaccurate. In a 160,000 acre-foot body of water (a small reservoir), it would take about 10,000,000 automatic rifle rounds to reach one part per million of lead in the water, which is nowhere near a dangerous level for humans. So firing a few thousand would not, by any reasonable interpretation of the word, be contamination. But that is still rendered moot by the fact that you are not intending to contaminate by doing so.
"I apologize if my pointing this out is rude. But the resolution says what it says. And only because people seem to be taking your preposterous claims seriously am I responding to them. Thank you, and I yield the floor. I shall be headed over to the Strangers' Bar, as my aide does not look very happy with me. Good day."

[Ddreigiau]

(ooc: The definition of contaminate is anything "bad" that makes a substance less pure. That's why scientists have to specify "harmful contamination" when speaking of such. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contaminate)

Resolutions, especially at this level, must be worded to take into account each and every possible interpretation. Thus, you must admit that a nation may take advantage of this, as will potential drug trafficking supporters.
And because the firing is an intentional act with explicitly known consequences, the contamination of the water is intentional. If, hypothetically, you were to intentionally blow up a building with people inside, with the intent of making room for your own building, you'd still be held accountable for several counts of murder.
Invading soldiers are not technically citizens, no, but I'll reiterate my point: any water that civilians in occupied territory have access to, so do enemy soldiers, whether the supplier wishes so or not. Simply by denying access to water, an invading army can force teh defenders to waste resources, both in terms of men and vehicles attempting to get water through enemy lines.

[Burninati0n]

...They may intercept H20 shipments for use by civilians in occupied territory...

Burnination still stands against this resolution, for previously stated reasons. However, when my advisers placed this piece of literature on my desk, I couldn't help but laughing.

What, are you shipping water in trucks? Have you considered the concept of piping it in? We here in Burnination have found it to be much more efficient.

Also, if you're looking to avoid the use of the word 'water,' we find 'dihydrogen oxide' infinitely preferable to 'H2O.'

"The resolution requires a national government to supply water to its citizens. The opposing military forces are not citizens of a nation, unless you have truly bizarre citizenship laws. Therefore, you do not have to provide water to enemy troops."

Yet again, you write your own interpretations of this resolution. We ask the ambassador to kindly point out the statute in this resolution that specifies that I only have to supply water to citizens?

It amuses us to no end that the author of this resolution seems utterly unaware of what it actually says.

[Ddreigiau]

I construct my statements from the view of including dealings with nations which are not subject to these rules or regulations, exempli gratia non-W.A. members. That means that it is assumed that enemy forces may cut the water pipes, or that refugee camps are set up in formerly rural areas where piping is not already laid. Wartime pipe-laying is a virtually impossible endeavor when it has to cross enemy lines. In these cases, transport by rail - easily disrupted - and by truck are the only efficient options. Transport by air isn't efficient due to weight and is easy to shoot down at much greater cost to the transporting nation.
I used the shorthand "H2O" simply because it was shorter to write.

[Embolalia]

"The resolution requires a national government to supply water to its citizens. The opposing military forces are not citizens of a nation, unless you have truly bizarre citizenship laws. Therefore, you do not have to provide water to enemy troops."

Yet again, you write your own interpretations of this resolution. We ask the ambassador to kindly point out the statute in this resolution that specifies that I only have to supply water to citizens?

It amuses us to no end that the author of this resolution seems utterly unaware of what it actually says.

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