[PASSED] Preventing Groundwater Contamination

[Wallenburg]

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,

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.

[Wallenburg]

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.

[Kenmoria]

“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.”

[Wallenburg]

“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."

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

[Bears Armed]

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?

[Araraukar]

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.

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.

[Wallenburg]

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

[Wallenburg]

Edits made. There are no problems now.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This was submitted.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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.

[Wallenburg]

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.

Indeed.

This is at vote.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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

[Wallenburg]

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.

[Kenmoria]

“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.”

[Fecaw]

"Full support."

[Glacikaldr]

"Full support."

Is that quotespeak I see? Koth shall be notified.

[Dirty Americans]

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

[Imperium Anglorum]

"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.

[Wallenburg]

"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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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

[Araraukar]

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 ) 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. ^_^

[Dirty Americans]

"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.

[Demontonia]

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.

[Araraukar]

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

OOC: Congratulations!