NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Preventing Groundwater Contamination

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

[PASSED] Preventing Groundwater Contamination

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:25 am

Preventing Groundwater Contamination
Image
Category: Environmental || Area of Effect: All Businesses - Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

Celebrating past efforts to raise awareness of the importance of water resource conservation and protection, and to implement policies to reduce overuse and contamination of naturally occurring water resources,

Concerned that few of these efforts have addressed groundwater sources in any manner, even though underground aquifers provide the majority of water used and consumed in member states,

Noting that transboundary aquifers are very common, and the management and protection of their resources inherently represents an international issue,

Recognizing that nearly all member nations depend on aquifers for the purposes of agriculture, industry, and domestic consumption, and that a risk to the potability or usability of these essential water resources presents a risk to the prosperity and survival of countless inhabitants of member states,

Understanding that while many aquifers may be less prone to contamination than surface water sources, few technologies exist to resolve groundwater contamination after its effects become deleterious, and many shallow, consolidated, unconfined, or overexerted aquifers do not sufficiently benefit from the filtration effects of surrounding soils to prevent contamination,

Resolving to reduce contamination of vulnerable aquifers by saltwater and artificial pollutants, including pathogens, nitrates, phosphates, toxic and nuclear wastes, and artificial herbicides and pesticides,

The World Assembly hereby:

  1. Tasks the International Bureau of Water Safety with researching and consolidating information on the size, distribution, and characteristics of groundwater resources, and issuing recommendations for the protection and conservation of these resources for reliable, long-term use,

  2. Requires member states to plan future land use so that agricultural, industrial, and transportation pollutants will not present any measurable threat to the utility and potability of aquifers,

  3. Mandates the implementation of regulations to protect groundwater resources near or interacting with sinkholes and cenotes on agricultural developments, including but not limited to:

    1. The growth or construction of a physical barrier around the mouth of the sinkhole or cenote, at a distance from the edge appropriate for the conditions of the sinkhole site, in order to minimize the accumulation of pollutants within the sinkhole or cenote,

    2. Diversion of all surface runoff around or away from the sinkhole or cenote,

    3. Cessation of application of fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides in the vicinity of the sinkhole or cenote,

    4. Restriction of all activity within the enclosed area of the sinkhole or cenote to scientific and recreational activities individually reviewed by a jurisdictional authority, determined to present no measurable threat to any groundwater system, and carried out by individuals possessing permits to perform those activities,
  4. Mandates protection of wildlife within all naturally occurring underground drainage systems, and recommends communication with the WA Endangered Species Committee for specific means by which to preserve the ecosystems contained within,

  5. Recommends that development of urban or industrial infrastructure upon evaporite formations, especially carbonates, in cases where acidic dissolution has resulted in extensive underground drainage systems, be limited as much as possible, and requires member states to institute additional limitations on industrial and agricultural activity to further prevent contamination of these particularly vulnerable aquifers,

  6. Requires all wells constructed over unconfined aquifers to undergo regular inspections for contamination of the groundwater below, and prohibits the use or disposal of potential contaminants in or nearby the opening of any such well,

  7. Requires member states to limit extraction from each aquifer to a maximum of the rate at which each aquifer is projected to saturate, and urges member states to further limit extraction from aquifers bordering saltwater fronts, so that the pressure of the freshwater column is maintained at a safe depth for long-term environmental health and reliable extraction, and so that high-density saltwater does not upcone into the freshwater column.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:24 am, edited 3 times in total.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:25 am

Preventing Groundwater Contamination
Category: Environmental || Area of Effect: All Businesses - Mild || Proposed by: Wallenburg

Celebrating past efforts to raise awareness of the importance of water resource conservation and protection, and to implement policies to reduce overuse and contamination of naturally occurring water resources,

Concerned that few of these efforts have addressed groundwater sources in any manner, even though underground aquifers provide the majority of water used and consumed in member states,

Recognizing that nearly all member nations depend on aquifers for the purposes of agriculture, industry, and domestic consumption, and that a risk to the potability or usability of these essential water resources presents a risk to the prosperity and survival of countless inhabitants of member states,

Understanding that while many aquifers may be less prone to contamination than surface water sources, few technologies exist to resolve groundwater contamination after its effects become deleterious, and many shallow, consolidated, unconfined, or overexerted aquifers do not sufficiently benefit from the filtration effects of surrounding soils to prevent contamination,

Resolving to reduce contamination of vulnerable aquifers by saltwater and artificial pollutants, including pathogens, nitrates, and artificial herbicides and pesticides,

The World Assembly hereby:

  1. Tasks the International Bureau of Water Safety with researching and consolidating information on the size, distribution, and characteristics of groundwater resources, and issuing recommendations for the protection and conservation of these resources for reliable, long-term use,

  2. Requires member states to plan future land use so that agricultural, industrial, and transportation pollutants will not present any measurable threat to the utility and potability of aquifers,

  3. Mandates the implementation of regulations on the use of potential groundwater contaminants near sinkholes and cenotes on agricultural developments, including but not limited to:

    1. The growth or construction of a physical barrier around the mouth of the sinkhole or cenote, at a distance from the edge appropriate for the conditions of the sinkhole site,

    2. Diversion of all water around or away from the sinkhole or cenote,

    3. Cessation of application of nitrites, herbicides, or pesticides in the vicinity of the sinkhole or cenote,
  4. Mandates protection of wildlife within all naturally occurring underground drainage systems, and recommends communication with the WA Endangered Species Committee for specific means by which to preserve the ecosystems contained within,

  5. Recommends that development of urban or industrial infrastructure upon evaporite formations, especially carbonates, in cases where acidic dissolution has resulted in extensive underground drainage systems, be limited as much as possible, and requires member states to institute additional limitations on industrial and agricultural activity to further prevent contamination of these particularly vulnerable aquifers,

  6. Requires all wells constructed over unconfined aquifers to undergo regular inspections for contamination of the groundwater below, and prohibits the use or disposal of potential contaminants in or nearby the opening of any such well,

  7. Requires member states to limit extraction from each aquifer to a maximum of the rate at which each aquifer is projected to saturate, and urges member states to further limit extraction from aquifers bordering saltwater fronts, so that the pressure of the freshwater column is maintained at a safe depth for long-term environmental health and reliable extraction, and so that high-density saltwater does not upcone into the freshwater column.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4035
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:37 am

“This has full support; it looks like a very strong, environmentally-conscious piece of legislation with no immediate flaws or causes for controversy. My only concern is rather minor, and should be easily fixed:

Clause 6 seems rather toothless given that it doesn’t state what these regular checkups should be. ‘Regular’ means ‘arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances‘, according to my dictionary. It can be therefore extrapolated that a checkup every millennia is regular, and fits the requirement of clause 6.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:37 pm

Kenmoria wrote:“This has full support; it looks like a very strong, environmentally-conscious piece of legislation with no immediate flaws or causes for controversy. My only concern is rather minor, and should be easily fixed:

Clause 6 seems rather toothless given that it doesn’t state what these regular checkups should be. ‘Regular’ means ‘arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances‘, according to my dictionary. It can be therefore extrapolated that a checkup every millennia is regular, and fits the requirement of clause 6.”

"Fair enough. I will consider options for imposing a time requirement on such inspections."
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:30 am

I had to look up the word "evaporite" and the word "cenote" in my dictionary! Opposed! It's not in English! /s But more seriously, regarding text, one might want to just substitute "karst formations and like structures" rather than a long explanation about something to do with carbonate rocks' acidic dissolution.

At a broader level, this seems to be inspired at least in part by what's going on in California. And even more broadly, what is going on in much of the US midwest, where water extraction is unlimited due to undercosting and under-regulation. I don't have many objections to that, though I would include a clause saying this is an international issue, because aquifers have little regard for national borders.

EDIT: Missed an apostrophe.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sun Dec 16, 2018 3:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17799
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:27 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I would include a clause saying this is an international issue, because aquifers have little regard for national borders.

Agreed.

Also, maybe add the underground "storage" or disposal of hazardous waste (nuclear waste, for example) in the list of potential contaminant sources?
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12517
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:28 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Recognizing that nearly all member nations depend on aquifers for the purposes of agriculture, industry, and domestic consumption,

OOC: They do? I mean, for a RL example, domestic consumption I'll give you, in part at least, but off the top of my mind I can't think of any region in Finland where agriculture or industry would mostly depend on ground water. (We normally get a lot of rain and thus surface waters are used - and usually aren't used for agriculture at all.) And I can provide a lot more examples if needed. :P

Resolving to reduce contamination of vulnerable aquifers by saltwater

That won't generally speaking happen to cenotes if you prevent freshwater from running into them.

a. The growth or construction of a physical barrier around the mouth of the sinkhole or cenote, at a distance from the edge appropriate for the conditions of the sinkhole site,

...and what of cultural/scientific/recreational use? Is the barrier intended to keep people away too? Or, hell, using them to get freshwater for drinking water or other small-scale domestic use.

b. Diversion of all water around or away from the sinkhole or cenote,

Which is impossible with RL tech (especially given how RL cenotes work), so I doubt you actually mean that as written. Do note that "all water" includes rain.

c. Cessation of application of nitrites, herbicides, or pesticides in the vicinity of the sinkhole or cenote,

But phosphate fertilizers are okay? Or animal dung? Also, are you absolutely sure you mean nitrites and not nitrates? The latter of which are the form of nitrogen used as fertilizer.

5. Recommends[/i] that development of urban or industrial infrastructure upon evaporite formations, especially carbonates, in cases where acidic dissolution has resulted in extensive underground drainage systems, be limited as much as possible, and requires member states to institute additional limitations on industrial and agricultural activity to further prevent contamination of these particularly vulnerable aquifers,

What are "these particularly vulnerable aquifers"? According to Wikipedia, "An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock, rock fractures or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt)." That specifically excludes any location where freshwater is accessible/visible from the surface (as it is in cenotes).

6. Requires all wells constructed over unconfined aquifers to undergo regular inspections for contamination of the groundwater below, and prohibits the use or disposal of potential contaminants in or nearby the opening of any such well,

...I would think that if we're going by "most WA nations are MT", then all aquifers (as the meaning of the word is usually understood) are "unconfined".

Also, given how large many aquifers can be (just one of them covers an area equivalent to a quarter of Australia, and that's fossil groundwater), I think that requiring "all wells [within the borders of an aquifer] to undergo regular inspections for contamination of the groundwater below" would bankrupt a lot of nations, given the likely numbers of already existing wells. I would suggest limiting that to areas with industry likely to contaminate groundwater, and agricultural areas where heavy use of pesticides/fertilizer is necessary.

7. Requires member states to limit extraction from each aquifer to a maximum of the rate at which each aquifer is projected to saturate

Given the amount of border-crossing aquifers in RL, what is a member nation supposed to do when their neighbouring non-member nation overuses the shared aquifer? Must the member nation keep tightening the limits of their use of it, ad infinitum? Or are they allowed to use their "extraction quota" regardless of it causing the aquifer to shrink, because another nation uses more than their quota? I realize that WA can only legislate for member nations, but that's a big RL issue (especially if you're banning allowing surface waters to enter via the natural openings into the aquifer), so presumably it's going to be a big WA issue for many nations.

Limiting extraction to sustainability in-nation would still catch much of the agricultural zones of USA, India and China, so they're probably a good indication of the feasibility. At the very least I would suggest a long (10 years minimum) transition period, because agriculture can't be just "switched off" or instantly made sustainable, especially in the nations (India, for example) with bigger problems of using (mostly because of costs) higher water management tech.

and urges member states to further limit extraction from aquifers bordering saltwater fronts, so that the pressure of the freshwater column is maintained at a safe depth for long-term environmental health and reliable extraction

Aside from the same issue already outlined above, what is to be done when natural processes (long-term reduction of rainwater - like, say, through climate change - required to maintain a given amount of freshwater in the aquifer) cause the saltwater level of the aquifer to rise?

Also, not all groundwater is freshwater. Some aquifers are naturally salty. I would suggest defining aquifer for the proposal, especially as your use of it in the text appears to partially not be as the word is defined in RL.

All in all, I like the idea, but as written, I seriously question the feasibility.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:16 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I had to look up the word "evaporite" and the word "cenote" in my dictionary! Opposed! It's not in English! /s But more seriously, regarding text, one might want to just substitute "karst formations and like structures" rather than a long explanation about something to do with carbonate rocks' acidic dissolution.

I think the current wording is appropriate, to keep certain orcs from pretending that karst formations are not actually karst.
At a broader level, this seems to be inspired at least in part by what's going on in California. And even more broadly, what is going on in much of the US midwest, where water extraction is unlimited due to undercosting and under-regulation. I don't have many objections to that, though I would include a clause saying this is an international issue, because aquifers have little regard for national borders.

Fair enough. It certainly wouldn't hurt to add such a clause.

Bears Armed wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I would include a clause saying this is an international issue, because aquifers have little regard for national borders.

Agreed.

Also, maybe add the underground "storage" or disposal of hazardous waste (nuclear waste, for example) in the list of potential contaminant sources?

I will be sure to add nuclear and toxic waste to the list, but I will leave heavy metals to the Toxic Heavy Metals Act.

Araraukar wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Recognizing that nearly all member nations depend on aquifers for the purposes of agriculture, industry, and domestic consumption,

OOC: They do? I mean, for a RL example, domestic consumption I'll give you, in part at least, but off the top of my mind I can't think of any region in Finland where agriculture or industry would mostly depend on ground water. (We normally get a lot of rain and thus surface waters are used - and usually aren't used for agriculture at all.) And I can provide a lot more examples if needed. :P

OOC: Actually, Finland's water infrastructure obtains 60% of its total water supply from groundwater. So not only does your country depend on groundwater, but it uses groundwater more often than it does not. This is mostly because groundwater is far purer than surface water in Finland, and often is potable without any treatment.
Resolving to reduce contamination of vulnerable aquifers by saltwater

That won't generally speaking happen to cenotes if you prevent freshwater from running into them.

If there is no water in a cenote, then it is not a cenote. By definition, a cenote intersects the water table.
a. The growth or construction of a physical barrier around the mouth of the sinkhole or cenote, at a distance from the edge appropriate for the conditions of the sinkhole site,

...and what of cultural/scientific/recreational use? Is the barrier intended to keep people away too? Or, hell, using them to get freshwater for drinking water or other small-scale domestic use.

You make a fair point. I will see about how to prevent contamination during scientific and recreational activity. Your imagined scenario in which sinkholes are used as a water source, though, is not reflected well in reality. Sinkholes have historically been used as waste dumps, far more than as water sources. There are far safer and more accessible water sources than sinkholes, whereas the properties of a sinkhole make it ideal for waste dumping in societies that don't care about water contamination. I will see if I can work out some means by which cenotes are still available as natural wells, but I'm not going to go out of my way to accommodate neolithic water infrastructure. The intent of this clause is to keep people, water, and contaminants such as trash from entering the sinkhole. Exceptions might be reasonable in very limited circumstances, but generally sinkholes should be obstructed and avoided at all times.
b. Diversion of all water around or away from the sinkhole or cenote,

Which is impossible with RL tech (especially given how RL cenotes work), so I doubt you actually mean that as written. Do note that "all water" includes rain.

Small sinkholes are regularly filled with cement or with graded bedding, technologies very easily available IRL. I will modify the language to clarify that the clause is not meant to include rainwater, but rather surface runoff.
c. Cessation of application of nitrites, herbicides, or pesticides in the vicinity of the sinkhole or cenote,

But phosphate fertilizers are okay? Or animal dung? Also, are you absolutely sure you mean nitrites and not nitrates? The latter of which are the form of nitrogen used as fertilizer.

Good catch. I will amend the language to incorporate all fertilizers under the regulations of this proposal.
5. Recommends[/i] that development of urban or industrial infrastructure upon evaporite formations, especially carbonates, in cases where acidic dissolution has resulted in extensive underground drainage systems, be limited as much as possible, and requires member states to institute additional limitations on industrial and agricultural activity to further prevent contamination of these particularly vulnerable aquifers,

What are "these particularly vulnerable aquifers"? According to Wikipedia, "An aquifer is an underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock, rock fractures or unconsolidated materials (gravel, sand, or silt)." That specifically excludes any location where freshwater is accessible/visible from the surface (as it is in cenotes).

No, it doesn't. In karst formations such as those that form cenotes, the distinction between groundwater and surface water is notoriously blurry, but that doesn't make the large quantities of clearly underground water surface water. Every aquifer has some degree of interaction with other water sources, such as surface runoff and saltwater. These "particularly vulnerable" aquifers are particularly vulnerable because they interact far more readily with those other sources, and so cross-contamination becomes a serious problem. This communication between aquifers stored in karst formations and surface water is the very reason that I started writing this proposal, and the chief reason why it is necessary.
6. Requires all wells constructed over unconfined aquifers to undergo regular inspections for contamination of the groundwater below, and prohibits the use or disposal of potential contaminants in or nearby the opening of any such well,

...I would think that if we're going by "most WA nations are MT", then all aquifers (as the meaning of the word is usually understood) are "unconfined".

No.
Also, given how large many aquifers can be (just one of them covers an area equivalent to a quarter of Australia, and that's fossil groundwater), I think that requiring "all wells [within the borders of an aquifer] to undergo regular inspections for contamination of the groundwater below" would bankrupt a lot of nations, given the likely numbers of already existing wells. I would suggest limiting that to areas with industry likely to contaminate groundwater, and agricultural areas where heavy use of pesticides/fertilizer is necessary.

If a nation can't afford to have its population test its wells every so often, then that nation can't afford its own water infrastructure. I'm not compromising this proposal to satisfy those nations that don't care whether millions of their people are drinking poisoned water.
7. Requires member states to limit extraction from each aquifer to a maximum of the rate at which each aquifer is projected to saturate

Given the amount of border-crossing aquifers in RL, what is a member nation supposed to do when their neighbouring non-member nation overuses the shared aquifer? Must the member nation keep tightening the limits of their use of it, ad infinitum? Or are they allowed to use their "extraction quota" regardless of it causing the aquifer to shrink, because another nation uses more than their quota? I realize that WA can only legislate for member nations, but that's a big RL issue (especially if you're banning allowing surface waters to enter via the natural openings into the aquifer), so presumably it's going to be a big WA issue for many nations.

That a non-member state is not being nice is no justification for overpumping an aquifer and bringing about the consequential ecological and economic dangers. If a member state must deal with a non-member state in how it handles a transboundary aquifer, then it will have to use the same tools that it always has: the pen and the sword.
Limiting extraction to sustainability in-nation would still catch much of the agricultural zones of USA, India and China, so they're probably a good indication of the feasibility. At the very least I would suggest a long (10 years minimum) transition period, because agriculture can't be just "switched off" or instantly made sustainable, especially in the nations (India, for example) with bigger problems of using (mostly because of costs) higher water management tech.

Member states are expected to comply to the best of their abilities. Only extremists and fools insist that the moment a resolution passes, compliance magically "switches on" in all member states. Necessarily, member states must transition to compliance with all resolutions. I see no reason to give member states an excuse not to do anything for 10 years.
and urges member states to further limit extraction from aquifers bordering saltwater fronts, so that the pressure of the freshwater column is maintained at a safe depth for long-term environmental health and reliable extraction

Aside from the same issue already outlined above, what is to be done when natural processes (long-term reduction of rainwater - like, say, through climate change - required to maintain a given amount of freshwater in the aquifer) cause the saltwater level of the aquifer to rise?

Well, I would encourage member states to prevent climate change from causing such issues at all. Even so, if saltwater intrusion is inevitable, then this clause doesn't make any requirements that member states not pump groundwater when doing so would risk saltwater intrusion.
Also, not all groundwater is freshwater. Some aquifers are naturally salty. I would suggest defining aquifer for the proposal, especially as your use of it in the text appears to partially not be as the word is defined in RL.

Saline aquifers will not be pumped in the first place, due to their uselessness to industry, agriculture, and domestic life, so I see no reason to make the distinction.
All in all, I like the idea, but as written, I seriously question the feasibility.

It's actually a rather sensible proposal, and mirrors measures taken in real life, albeit in far broader language.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:42 pm

Edits made. There are no problems now.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:01 pm

This was submitted.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3156
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:39 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Edits made. There are no problems now.


OOC: I always love it when people declare things like this in their own drafts. "Attention: I have determined that this phrasing is Awesome and that my proposal is Good." In this case, it appears to be accurate, at least from a legal perspective. :p
Principal-Agent, Anarchy; Lieutenant, The Red Fleet
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Illustrious Bum #279
Ambassador-At-Large
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:36 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Edits made. There are no problems now.


OOC: I always love it when people declare things like this in their own drafts. "Attention: I have determined that this phrasing is Awesome and that my proposal is Good." In this case, it appears to be accurate, at least from a legal perspective. :p

Indeed. :)

This is at vote.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:43 pm

Sanctaria raised this on Discord, I'm shamelessly reposting this here for general comment:

"Mandates protection of wildlife within all naturally occurring underground drainage systems"
iirc, california (and maybe some other states) had massive mosquito problems in their subsurface draining system
I don't fancy being mandated to protect mosquitos tbqh

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:33 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sanctaria raised this on Discord, I'm shamelessly reposting this here for general comment:

"Mandates protection of wildlife within all naturally occurring underground drainage systems"
iirc, california (and maybe some other states) had massive mosquito problems in their subsurface draining system
I don't fancy being mandated to protect mosquitos tbqh

All searches I make for such cases of underground mosquito-ridden water systems refer to storm drains and similar artificial waterworks. As such, I don't see a need to allow member states to deal with such creatures in situations where they do not cause significant problems for the public.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 4035
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jan 06, 2019 1:24 pm

“This draft looks like a good, solid resolution resolution that, maybe even perfectly, addresses the issue of preventing groundwater contamination. It has my full support.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Fecaw
Envoy
 
Posts: 220
Founded: Feb 10, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Fecaw » Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:16 pm

"Full support."
The Kingdom Of Fecaw
GP: Treatment of the Deceased ♢ Author of GA#432+435 ♢ I am also called Erithaca
The mountain of books has one way and hard work serves as the path. The sea of learning has no end and effort makes the boat.

User avatar
Glacikaldr
Envoy
 
Posts: 290
Founded: Jul 17, 2016
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Glacikaldr » Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:59 pm

Fecaw wrote:"Full support."

Is that quotespeak I see? Koth shall be notified.
TRR's MOST PROLIFIC DOOFA

WikiStates - Glacikaldr

User avatar
Dirty Americans
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 23, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Dirty Americans » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:26 pm

"Disgusting. Pathetic. Horrible. Wait, the last part isn't too bad. We vote for."
Dirty Americans of The East Pacific
Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation
Mike Rowe, Leader / John Henry, Ambassador
Bill Nye Science Guy / Rosie O'Donnel Social Warrior/ Michelle Obama Food Expert

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:46 pm

Dirty Americans wrote:"Disgusting. Pathetic. Horrible. Wait, the last part isn't too bad. We vote for."

I'm surprised there hasn't been a revolution about the use of the word "upcone" in the phrase "upcone into the freshwater column" because my spell checker flags it as not a word.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19638
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:30 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Dirty Americans wrote:"Disgusting. Pathetic. Horrible. Wait, the last part isn't too bad. We vote for."

I'm surprised there hasn't been a revolution about the use of the word "upcone" in the phrase "upcone into the freshwater column" because my spell checker flags it as not a word.

Browser spellchecking is notoriously unreliable. It'll flag all sorts of valid words. As it is, the term can be found in all sorts of academic and governmental publications.
Last edited by Wallenburg on Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8523
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:43 pm

Insert "this is cause for revolution against the WA elite" drivel here.

Author: 1 SC and 26 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12517
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:31 pm

OOC: Sorry for not getting back to you on this; having a find a new place to live in, after having grown roots for 12 years is surprisingly stressful. Still, a good title and not too insensible (I still object to all runoff diversion requirement, due to rain being a thing that happens on most planets :P) clauses, and it looks like it'll pass on individual nation votes alone, if necessary.

And for what it's worth, the few changes you made were enough to vote for OOCly, too, not just ICly. ^_^
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Dirty Americans
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 23, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Dirty Americans » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:20 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Dirty Americans wrote:"Disgusting. Pathetic. Horrible. Wait, the last part isn't too bad. We vote for."

I'm surprised there hasn't been a revolution about the use of the word "upcone" in the phrase "upcone into the freshwater column" because my spell checker flags it as not a word.

I can search it through Duckduckgo so it must be true. 1/4 of words I use don't register under the standard spell checker so I need to "Google" them.
Dirty Americans of The East Pacific
Member of the Tzorsland Puppet Federation
Mike Rowe, Leader / John Henry, Ambassador
Bill Nye Science Guy / Rosie O'Donnel Social Warrior/ Michelle Obama Food Expert

User avatar
Demontonia
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Jan 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Why this could be great for industry

Postby Demontonia » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:58 pm

If you think about it, building systems of run off for example may help industry by creating more jobs. I only see this as a win win.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12517
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:23 am

Preventing Groundwater Contamination was passed 13,538 votes to 2,183.

OOC: Congratulations!
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads