[DRAFT] Repeal: "Clean Water Act"

[Terrabod]

Hi everyone! This is my first GA proposal draft, so please have mercy on my pitiful soul. Thanks for taking a look; any feedback is greatly appreciated.

Repeal: "Clean Water Act"

---

The General Assembly,

Commending the attempted aim of GA#107 “Clean Water Act” to provide access to safe and reliable sources of drinking water to all citizens of member nations, but;

Realising that GA#107 contains significant flaws, such as:

• The requirement for all member nations to provide access to clean drinking water to their respective citizens without exception. This leaves member nations that are unable to provide such access through no fault of their own, including nations that are experiencing or have recently experienced a natural disaster, in breach of WA legislation and subject to all the penalties included therein.
• The total prohibition of the intentional contamination of drinking water supplies. Here, the incorrect use of “contamination” (which, when referring to water quality, describes any and all impurities and is not limited to harmful pollutants) prevents member nations from adding disinfectants or beneficial additives to drinking water sources, resulting in poorer public health outcomes and drinking water that may contain pathogens. This creates an irresolvable conflict with Clause 4 which allows member nations to intentionally contaminate their drinking water supplies with disinfectants and chemical additives.

Further realising that extant World Assembly legislation more effectively resolves the issues that GA#107 aims to counter, including:

• GA#344 “Minimum Standard of Living Act”, which mandates that member nations provide access to safe drinking water to all inhabitants and does include reasonable exceptions for extreme and unavoidable circumstances such as those mentioned above.
• GA#441 “Convention on Freshwater Shortages”, which:
  
  • Prohibits member nations and any businesses contained therein from disposing hazardous waste into drinking water supplies.
  • Tasks the Joint Water Resources Management Panel with helping member nations to manage drinking water supplies when those supplies are threatened, sending aid to member nations whose drinking water sources are at risk as a result of environmental disasters and providing member nations with the tools required to monitor the quality and security of drinking water sources.
  • Provides guidance for member nations on supplying safe, sustainably sourced drinking water to all citizens without over-legislation or micromanagement.
• GA#223 “Transboundary Water Use Act”, which mandates that member nations use transboundary drinking water sources fairly and sustainably, providing a framework for the effective sharing of drinking water sources between member nations.
• GA#272 “Chemical Weapons Accord”, which prohibits the contamination of drinking water supplies as a military tactic.

Recognising that with the above extant legislation in place GA#107 does little more than create yet another committee with no apparent purpose but to drain World Assembly funds;

Believing that legislation on the protection of drinking water supplies which goes beyond the aforementioned extant World Assembly legislation will likely be specific to individual member nations and so should be within the remit of national law, and;

Acknowledging that flawed and redundant World Assembly legislation should be repealed wherever possible;

Hereby repeals GA#107 “Clean Water Act”.

Repeal: "Clean Water Act"

---

The General Assembly,

Commending the attempted aim of GA#107 “Clean Water Act” to provide access to safe and reliable sources of drinking water to all citizens of member nations, but;

Realising that GA#107 contains significant flaws, such as:

• The requirement for all member nations to provide access to clean drinking water to their respective citizens without exception. This leaves member nations that are unable to provide such access through no fault of their own, including nations that are experiencing or have recently experienced a natural disaster, in breach of WA legislation and subject to all the penalties included therein.
• The total prohibition on the intentional contamination of drinking water supplies. Here, the ambiguous use of “contamination” (which can mean “to make impure”, not necessarily “to pollute”) prevents member nations from adding disinfectants or beneficial additives to drinking water sources, resulting in poorer public health outcomes and drinking water that may contain pathogens. This creates an irresolvable conflict with Clause 4 which allows member nations to intentionally contaminate their drinking water supplies with disinfectants and chemical additives.

Further realising that extant World Assembly legislation more effectively resolves the issues that GA#107 aims to counter, including:

• GA#344 “Minimum Standard of Living Act”, which mandates that member nations provide access to safe drinking water to all inhabitants and does include reasonable exceptions for extreme and unavoidable circumstances such as those mentioned above.
• GA#441 “Convention on Freshwater Shortages”, which:
  
  • Prohibits member nations and any businesses contained therein from disposing hazardous waste into drinking water supplies.
  • Tasks the Joint Water Resources Management Panel with helping member nations to manage drinking water supplies when those supplies are threatened, sending aid to member nations whose drinking water sources are at risk as a result of environmental disasters and providing member nations with the tools required to monitor the quality and security of drinking water sources.
  • Provides guidance for member nations on supplying safe, sustainably sourced drinking water to all citizens without over-legislation or micromanagement.
• GA#223 “Transboundary Water Use Act”, which mandates that member nations use transboundary drinking water sources fairly and sustainably, providing a framework for the effective sharing of drinking water sources between member nations.
• GA#272 “Chemical Weapons Accord”, which prohibits the contamination of drinking water supplies as a military tactic.

Recognising that with the above extant legislation in place GA#107 does little more than create yet another committee with no apparent purpose but to drain World Assembly funds;

Believing that legislation on the protection of drinking water supplies which goes beyond the aforementioned extant World Assembly legislation will likely be specific to individual member nations and so should be within the remit of national law, and;

Acknowledging that flawed and redundant World Assembly legislation should be repealed wherever possible;

Hereby repeals GA#107 “Clean Water Act”.

[Hulldom]

I'm sure others will have substantive feedback, but I'm seeing no issues. If anything, and this is very nitpicky, change one of the "including"s in your main listing clauses.

Otherwise, Full Support.

[Terrabod]

I'm sure others will have substantive feedback, but I'm seeing no issues. If anything, and this is very nitpicky, change one of the "including"s in your main listing clauses.

Otherwise, Full Support.

Thanks very much! I've changed the first "including" to "such as" - I hope this is adequate.

[Outer Sparta]

Support. Looks well-written from a first glance and makes its arguments clear.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Looks good to me, and looks good IC to the Bears. Congratulations on such a good first draft. (Offsite drafting in Forest's forum?)
'Legal' [1/6 of GenSec]

[Araraukar]

"Such a strict reading of contamination would suggest that naturally dissolved minerals and even oxygen would be considered "contamination", which results in the ridiculousness of the reading. Contamination is practically by definition unwanted compounds or particles. I at least cannot think of any use of the word where the contamination was something that was wanted. So something that is added intentionally to be beneficial cannot be a contaminant."

[Terrabod]

Support. Looks well-written from a first glance and makes its arguments clear.

OOC: Looks good to me, and looks good IC to the Bears.

Thanks, both of you!

Congratulations on such a good first draft. (Offsite drafting in Forest's forum?)

I wish I could claim this as a win for our offsite forum, but after sitting for a week over there without feedback I decided to bite the bullet and post my draft here. I'm not at all disappointed or anything; I remember you and I having a conversation on how as a resource our offsite drafting is in its infancy.

"Such a strict reading of contamination would suggest that naturally dissolved minerals and even oxygen would be considered "contamination", which results in the ridiculousness of the reading. Contamination is practically by definition unwanted compounds or particles. I at least cannot think of any use of the word where the contamination was something that was wanted. So something that is added intentionally to be beneficial cannot be a contaminant."

I was anticipating someone bringing this up, and upon reading that part of the draft I realise my argument looks I was splitting hairs, but despite it being poorly written I do stand by this point.

Essentially, you are correct; in RL, the legislation that enshrines access to safe drinking water in US federal law, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), defines a contaminant as "any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter in water". Thus, as explained by the USA's Environmental Protection Agency, "Drinking water may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. Some drinking water contaminants may be harmful if consumed at certain levels in drinking water while others may be harmless. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a health risk." You are therefore right to suggest that naturally dissolved minerals and oxygen are considered "contamination" - such impurities are referred to as "natural contaminants" and are generally not harmful. While some contaminants are regulated under the SDWA, this is limited to those that pose a potential risk to ecosystems or human health (known as "pollutants"). So, while all pollutants are contaminants, not all contaminants are pollutants. In fact, there's a field of water quality research that aims to determine at what stage (i.e. at what concentration) a contaminant becomes a pollutant (example). These sources formed my argument about the incorrect usage of "contaminants" in GA#107.

I believe the mistaken use of "contaminants" by the author of GA#107 shows the limitations of their research; where they refer to "contaminants", they should instead have referred to "pollutants". I don't claim that GA#107 bans WA nations from providing drinking water containing natural contaminants (including oxygen, calcium, harmless bacteria), but what it does do is prohibit the intentional contamination of drinking water supplies whether the additives are harmless or not. While this wording does efficiently prevent the intentional addition of pollutants to water supplies, it also prevents the intentional addition of harmless (or beneficial) contaminants such as disinfectants, leaving citizens potentially exposed to pathogen-infested drinking water.

While I'm guilty of using "contamination" as a synonym for "pollution" in everyday conversation as much as the next person, I don't think World Assembly legislation is the place for using colloquialisms in place of accurate terminology. While it's a genuine mistake from the author of GA#107, I shudder to think about the poorer health outcomes this resolution has brought about through its use of inaccurate terminology.

I take your points in good faith, though, and realise in my draft it reads as if I was scraping the bottom of the barrel in the search for criticisms of GA#107. I would appreciate your (or any one else's) help to reword this section of the draft to reflect that there's a very good reason the use of "contamination" is inappropriate as I have explained above.

EDIT: Perhaps something like:

Here, the incorrect use of “contamination” (which, when referring to water quality, describes any and all impurities and is not limited to harmful pollutants) prevents member nations from adding disinfectants or beneficial additives to drinking water sources, resulting in poorer public health outcomes and drinking water that may contain pathogens. This creates an irresolvable conflict with Clause 4 which allows member nations to intentionally contaminate their drinking water supplies with disinfectants and chemical additives.

[Wallenburg]

The requirement for all member nations to provide access to clean drinking water to their respective citizens without exception. This leaves member nations that are unable to provide such access through no fault of their own, including nations that are experiencing or have recently experienced a natural disaster, in breach of WA legislation and subject to all the penalties included therein.

"I understand that different cultures have different priorities, but where I'm from clean drinking water is a rather basic expectation from the government. Before healthcare, before law enforcement, before even elections a great many people consider potable water a priority."

The total prohibition of intentional contamination of drinking water supplies. Here, the ambiguous use of “contamination” (which can mean “to make impure”, not necessarily “to pollute”) prevents member nations from adding disinfectants or beneficial additives to drinking water sources, resulting in poorer public health outcomes and drinking water that may contain pathogens. This creates an irresolvable conflict with Clause 4 which allows member nations to intentionally contaminate their drinking water supplies with disinfectants and chemical additives.

"This is not how 'contamination' is used anywhere. Contamination requires a contaminant, which is universally either a poison or pollutant. Neither of these belong in drinking water. Neither of these include disinfectants or healthy additives, which by their design remove or neutralize contaminants.

"These arguments for repeal fail to convince me. True, many resolutions touch the same issue this resolution covers to some extent, but those intersections do not render this resolution needless."

[Terrabod]

First of all, thanks for the comments Araraukar and Wallenburg.

"I understand that different cultures have different priorities, but where I'm from clean drinking water is a rather basic expectation from the government. Before healthcare, before law enforcement, before even elections a great many people consider potable water a priority."

Which it is, and as I note in this draft GA#344 “Minimum Standard of Living Act” already guarantees that member nations provide clean drinking water as a necessity. I am categorically not arguing that clean drinking water is not a necessity. I simply object to GA#107 slapping nations that are, for example, currently experiencing a major earthquake and are categorically unable to provide clean water to their citizens with the penalties resulting from non-compliance. We're all aware that such penalties are severe and debilitating, and to further destabilise such a nation for something out of their control is, in my opinion, abhorrent.

As described in the draft, GA#344 allows for exceptions under such extreme and uncontrollable circumstances, and GA#441 “Convention on Freshwater Shortages” requires that the Joint Water Resources Management Panel (JWRMP) sends aid to member nations whose drinking water sources are at risk. Thus, even if a nation experiencing an earthquake cannot provide its citizens with drinking water in line with GA#344, that nation will still receive desperately needed aid from the JWRMP. I think this is a better solution than slapping them with WA non-compliance penalties which is what GA#107 does in this same situation, and I believe member nations will be better off without this legislation in place.

"This is not how 'contamination' is used anywhere. Contamination requires a contaminant, which is universally either a poison or pollutant. Neither of these belong in drinking water. Neither of these include disinfectants or healthy additives, which by their design remove or neutralize contaminants.

If you read the post above yours, in response to the comments of the esteemed ambassador from Araraukar, I hope you'll understand that when referring to water quality "contaminants" are not necessarily "pollutants" - to claim this is the case when considering colloquial use may be acceptable, but as far as correct water quality terminology goes this is most certainly not the case.

"These arguments for repeal fail to convince me. True, many resolutions touch the same issue this resolution covers to some extent, but those intersections do not render this resolution needless."

I welcome further discussion and hope that with additional work this draft will gain your approval.

------

I'm concerned that unless I change the "contaminants" point in my draft to reflect my research this will keep causing issues, so I'll go ahead and change it to the wording I proposed two posts up. I'm not saying that's that sorted, though, and I'd be grateful for further feedback on how this point can be improved.

Cheers!

[Cappedore]

"Myself, my WA Representative and my advisors have read this thoroughly and are happy to say that we are in full support of this proposal."

- Count Vilhjálmur VII

[Wallenburg]

First of all, thanks for the comments Araraukar and Wallenburg.

"I understand that different cultures have different priorities, but where I'm from clean drinking water is a rather basic expectation from the government. Before healthcare, before law enforcement, before even elections a great many people consider potable water a priority."

Which it is, and as I note in this draft GA#344 “Minimum Standard of Living Act” already guarantees that member nations provide clean drinking water as a necessity. I am categorically not arguing that clean drinking water is not a necessity. I simply object to GA#107 slapping nations that are, for example, currently experiencing a major earthquake and are categorically unable to provide clean water to their citizens with the penalties resulting from non-compliance. We're all aware that such penalties are severe and debilitating, and to further destabilise such a nation for something out of their control is, in my opinion, abhorrent.

"Even impoverished feudal holdings can maintain the disaster infrastructure necessary to provide drinkable water to their population. Your standards for government protection of the lives in their jurisdiction are appallingly low."

As described in the draft, GA#344 allows for exceptions under such extreme and uncontrollable circumstances, and GA#441 “Convention on Freshwater Shortages” requires that the Joint Water Resources Management Panel (JWRMP) sends aid to member nations whose drinking water sources are at risk. Thus, even if a nation experiencing an earthquake cannot provide its citizens with drinking water in line with GA#344, that nation will still receive desperately needed aid from the JWRMP. I think this is a better solution than slapping them with WA non-compliance penalties which is what GA#107 does in this same situation, and I believe member nations will be better off without this legislation in place.

"If there exists international law to provide clean water to member states in emergencies, then what is the issue? These non-compliance penalties as a consequence of force majeure are imaginary."

"This is not how 'contamination' is used anywhere. Contamination requires a contaminant, which is universally either a poison or pollutant. Neither of these belong in drinking water. Neither of these include disinfectants or healthy additives, which by their design remove or neutralize contaminants.

If you read the post above yours, in response to the comments of the esteemed ambassador from Araraukar, I hope you'll understand that when referring to water quality "contaminants" are not necessarily "pollutants" - to claim this is the case when considering colloquial use may be acceptable, but as far as correct water quality terminology goes this is most certainly not the case.

OOC: The language used in the Safe Drinking Water Act does not set the standard definition across the entire English language. My point stands.

[Terrabod]

"Even impoverished feudal holdings can maintain the disaster infrastructure necessary to provide drinkable water to their population. Your standards for government protection of the lives in their jurisdiction are appallingly low."

The cholera outbreak resulting from the widespread destruction of infrastructure after the 2010 Haiti earthquake killed over 8,000 people. It isn't always possible for a nation experiencing or recovering from natural disasters to provide clean drinking water to their citizens.

"If there exists international law to provide clean water to member states in emergencies, then what is the issue? These non-compliance penalties as a consequence of force majeure are imaginary."

It is clear that member nations cannot always provide clean drinking water for their citizens. Especially when considering developing nations, there is no perfect response to a severe earthquake where clean drinking water can be provided to all citizens without fail all of the time. The interaction of GA#344 and GA#441 makes the best of a bad situation - GA#107 punishes member nations that are already on their knees, and must be repealed.

OOC: The language used in the Safe Drinking Water Act does not set the standard definition across the entire English language. My point stands.

As the definition used by engineers, scientists, politicians and the US judiciary, it's a better starting point than colloquialisms. You are right that poisons and pollutants are contaminants, but there exist a number of harmless contaminants, including non-pathogenic bacteria and low concentrations of some metals. And, as I have stressed, this usage is quite specific to water quality - when referring to food, "contaminants" are never a good thing.

Of course, it isn't limited to the SDWA - as I mentioned in my previous post, there's a field of water quality research that aims to determine when a harmless contaminant becomes a pollutant.

EDIT: I thought I'd check EU law just for the sake of it; here, water treatment chemicals and disinfectants are considered contaminants, and member nations are required to keep contamination with these chemicals as low as possible so long as it doesn't compromise the disinfection process.

"Myself, my WA Representative and my advisors have read this thoroughly and are happy to say that we are in full support of this proposal."

- Count Vilhjálmur VII

Thank you very much! I appreciate your support.

[Wallenburg]

The cholera outbreak resulting from the widespread destruction of infrastructure after the 2010 Haiti earthquake killed over 8,000 people. It isn't always possible for a nation experiencing or recovering from natural disasters to provide clean drinking water to their citizens.

"And whatever Haiti is, it would have received aid under 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages' if it were a World Assembly member state. I don't see how this is any reason to allow member states and entities under their jurisdiction to intentionally pollute their water supplies."

"If there exists international law to provide clean water to member states in emergencies, then what is the issue? These non-compliance penalties as a consequence of force majeure are imaginary."

It is clear that member nations cannot always provide clean drinking water for their citizens. Especially when considering developing nations, there is no perfect response to a severe earthquake where clean drinking water can be provided to all citizens without fail all of the time. The interaction of GA#344 and GA#441 makes the best of a bad situation - GA#107 punishes member nations that are already on their knees, and must be repealed.

"Except it doesn't, due to 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages'. We have here a resolution that requires member states to provide clean water to their population and a resolution that provides water to member states during crises, and you see this arrangement as a reason to no longer require member states to provide clean water to their population. I really must question what the actual motivation is behind this repeal attempt."

OOC: The language used in the Safe Drinking Water Act does not set the standard definition across the entire English language. My point stands.

As the definition used by engineers, scientists, politicians and the US judiciary, it's a better starting point than colloquialisms. You are right that poisons and pollutants are contaminants, but there exist a number of harmless contaminants, including non-pathogenic bacteria and low concentrations of some metals. And, as I have stressed, this usage is quite specific to water quality - when referring to food, "contaminants" are never a good thing.

OOC: There's nothing colloquial about just using "contaminant" as it is defined in the English language. Member states will not apply this ridiculously broad version of "contaminant" which you attempt to cram into the repeal. They will, as is in their interest as states, interpret contamination as being made impure by pollutants or poisons. Trying to force an issue to exist with the target's language does not actually create a reason to repeal it.

Of course, it isn't limited to the SDWA - as I mentioned in my previous post, there's a field of water quality research that aims to determine when a harmless contaminant becomes a pollutant.

EDIT: I thought I'd check EU law just for the sake of it; here, water treatment chemicals and disinfectants are considered contaminants, and member nations are required to keep contamination with these chemicals as low as possible so long as it doesn't compromise the disinfection process.

That's not what it says. It considers some disinfectant by-products contaminants. At no point does it actually define contaminants.

[Terrabod]

"And whatever Haiti is, it would have received aid under 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages' if it were a World Assembly member state. I don't see how this is any reason to allow member states and entities under their jurisdiction to intentionally pollute their water supplies."

As pointed out previously, GA#441 “Convention on Freshwater Shortages” prevents member states and entities under their jurisdiction from intentionally polluting their water supplies. I'm sure you're aware that GA#441 is not being repealed by the above draft.

"Except it doesn't, due to 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages'. We have here a resolution that requires member states to provide clean water to their population and a resolution that provides water to member states during crises, and you see this arrangement as a reason to no longer require member states to provide clean water to their population."

Yet another misrepresentation. I stand by my point that there is no perfect response to a severe infrastructure-destroying earthquake where clean drinking water can be provided to all citizens without fail all of the time. I'm glad that the Joint Water Resources Management Panel sends aid to member nations in need, even though that aid is not specified as providing water. You act as if I want to take clean water out of the mouths of member nations' citizens, which could not be farther from the truth - by repealing GA#107, I hope to protect member nations that are already on their knees through no fault of their own from suffering the penalties of resolution non-compliance. The interaction between GA#344 and GA#441 is a better way (but not a perfect way) of dealing with water crises and together they do not unjustly punish member nations (and their citizens) experiencing such crises.

OOC: There's nothing colloquial about just using "contaminant" as it is defined in the English language. Member states will not apply this ridiculously broad version of "contaminant" which you attempt to cram into the repeal. They will, as is in their interest as states, interpret contamination as being made impure by pollutants or poisons. Trying to force an issue to exist with the target's language does not actually create a reason to repeal it.

I have outlined what "contaminant" means in the context of water quality. If the target had provided their own definition of "contaminant" that was restricted to pollutants there would be no issue here, even though that terminology would be incorrect. That isn't the case, and it's therefore not wrong to point out the ramifications of the mistaken terminology used in GA#107. As described below (and above), if intentionally adding contaminants to drinking water was banned in RL via water quality legislation, adding disinfectants, water treatment chemicals or beneficial additives to drinking water would be prohibited. This would have a catastrophic impact on human health.

That's not what it says. It considers some disinfectant by-products contaminants. At no point does it actually define contaminants.

And water treatment chemicals. As these are considered contaminants, their application would be banned by GA#107. You may even agree with me that such chemicals are not pollutants even though they are considered "contaminants" by the EU. In fact, their use is beneficial - banning their use would have a negative impact on human health.

[Wallenburg]

"And whatever Haiti is, it would have received aid under 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages' if it were a World Assembly member state. I don't see how this is any reason to allow member states and entities under their jurisdiction to intentionally pollute their water supplies."

As pointed out previously, GA#441 “Convention on Freshwater Shortages” prevents member states and entities under their jurisdiction from intentionally polluting their water supplies. I'm sure you're aware that GA#441 is not being repealed by the above draft.

"'Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply' has significant differences against 'The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise.' These differences are great enough that you can hardly say that 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages' fully covers the issue of contaminants in the water supply."

"Except it doesn't, due to 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages'. We have here a resolution that requires member states to provide clean water to their population and a resolution that provides water to member states during crises, and you see this arrangement as a reason to no longer require member states to provide clean water to their population."

Yet another misrepresentation. I stand by my point that there is no perfect response to a severe infrastructure-destroying earthquake where clean drinking water can be provided to all citizens without fail all of the time. I'm glad that the Joint Water Resources Management Panel sends aid to member nations in need, even though that aid is not specified as providing water. You act as if I want to take clean water out of the mouths of member nations' citizens, which could not be farther from the truth - by repealing GA#107, I hope to protect member nations that are already on their knees through no fault of their own from suffering the penalties of resolution non-compliance. The interaction between GA#344 and GA#441 is a better way (but not a perfect way) of dealing with water crises and together they do not unjustly punish member nations (and their citizens) experiencing such crises.

"The only way I can interpret your behavior here as rational is if you do want to deprive people of clean drinking water. You don't increase water quality and access by removing mandates that safeguard water quality and access. You keep insisting that the World Assembly should not require member states to guarantee their people clean drinking water, even when your go-to excuses for poor water quality are addressed by disaster aid in other resolutions. Exactly what else am I supposed to take from all this except that you wish to deny the people of member states clean water?"

OOC: There's nothing colloquial about just using "contaminant" as it is defined in the English language. Member states will not apply this ridiculously broad version of "contaminant" which you attempt to cram into the repeal. They will, as is in their interest as states, interpret contamination as being made impure by pollutants or poisons. Trying to force an issue to exist with the target's language does not actually create a reason to repeal it.

I have outlined what "contaminant" means in the context of water quality. If the target had provided their own definition of "contaminant" that was restricted to pollutants there would be no issue here, even though that terminology would be incorrect. That isn't the case, and it's therefore not wrong to point out the ramifications of the mistaken terminology used in GA#107. As described below (and above), if intentionally adding contaminants to drinking water was banned in RL via water quality legislation, adding disinfectants, water treatment chemicals or beneficial additives to drinking water would be prohibited. This would have a catastrophic impact on human health.

OOC: It is you and not the target's author who is mistaken on matters of terminology. You are manufacturing a problem where there is not one.

And water treatment chemicals. As these are considered contaminants, their application would be banned by GA#107. You may even agree with me that such chemicals are not pollutants even though they are considered "contaminants" by the EU. In fact, their use is beneficial - banning their use would have a negative impact on human health.

This simply is not true.

[Terrabod]

"'Prohibits member nations or any businesses contained wherein from disposing hazardous waste into oceanic bodies, international waters, and the public drinking supply' has significant differences against 'The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise.' These differences are great enough that you can hardly say that 'Convention on Freshwater Shortages' fully covers the issue of contaminants in the water supply."

Thankfully "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" does not prevent the disinfection of drinking water supplies. The two are not equivalent, but I stand by the argument that any more specific legislation can be handled competently by member nations. The prohibition on polluting drinking water supplies with hazardous waste in "Convention on Freshwater Shortages" is laudable, but the obvious shortcomings of GA#107 are not, despite its good intentions.

"The only way I can interpret your behavior here as rational is if you do want to deprive people of clean drinking water. You don't increase water quality and access by removing mandates that safeguard water quality and access. You keep insisting that the World Assembly should not require member states to guarantee their people clean drinking water, even when your go-to excuses for poor water quality are addressed by disaster aid in other resolutions. Exactly what else am I supposed to take from all this except that you wish to deny the people of member states clean water?"

I have outlined how disaster aid is not a perfect solution to water crises, but since no perfect solution exists we should make do with a solution that doesn't harshly penalise member nations unable to provide access to clean drinking water, even temporarily, through no fault of their own. I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest you must support these unjust penalties, and I hope in future you too would also limit the use of that sort of argument.

OOC: It is you and not the target's author who is mistaken on matters of terminology. You are manufacturing a problem where there is not one.

And yet I am the one who has shown what "contaminant" and "contamination" refer to in RL water quality legislation. I don't aim to denigrate the author of the target, but their terminology is incorrect. If we were talking food quality then banning "contamination" would be acceptable (even, I daresay, desirable) but that is not the case here.

And water treatment chemicals. As these are considered contaminants, their application would be banned by GA#107. You may even agree with me that such chemicals are not pollutants even though they are considered "contaminants" by the EU. In fact, their use is beneficial - banning their use would have a negative impact on human health.

This simply is not true.

Except it is. Although contaminants are not defined, the EU clearly states that these chemicals are contaminants in their revised Drinking Water Directive which came into force earlier this year. As contaminants, adding these to drinking water supplies would be banned under GA#107, even though they have a beneficial effect on human health.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: In the face of conflicting RL definitions (or non-definitions) of terms used in a technical sense in resolutions, and no definitions given actually in those resolutions, the WA Compliance authorities would have to decide on the applicable definitions for themselves. We cannot say for certain which way they would decide. [1/6 of GenSec]

[Terrabod]

OOC: In the face of conflicting RL definitions (or non-definitions) of terms used in a technical sense in resolutions, and no definitions given actually in those resolutions, the WA Compliance authorities would have to decide on the applicable definitions for themselves. We cannot say for certain which way they would decide. [1/6 of GenSec]

Does this mean my second point is invalid?

[Araraukar]

If you read the post above yours, in response to the comments of the esteemed ambassador from Araraukar

OOC: Are you posting OOCly? Because referring to ambassadors suggests IC, but referring to posts suggests OOC, referring to RL things suggests OOC...

This is an IC forum, so if you post OOC, mark your posts OOC or put in your siggy that you always post OOCly or something like that.

[Terrabod]

OOC: Are you posting OOCly? Because referring to ambassadors suggests IC, but referring to posts suggests OOC, referring to RL things suggests OOC...

This is an IC forum, so if you post OOC, mark your posts OOC or put in your siggy that you always post OOCly or something like that.

Sorry, I don't know what I'm doing at all haha. Thanks for the quick etiquette lesson; I'm used to how things are done in Got Issues and I didn't know how to make sure your character could hear me speaking OOC. I'll change my signature right now.