[DRAFT]Repeal "Clean Water Act"

[Burninati0n]

(The Clean Water Act)

This is an updated version of the previously submitted repeal effort, which was defeated in the general poll by a fair margin. I have since moved to cover all of the things that I read on the debate thread for the original resolution.

Welcoming opinions and suggestions.

The World Assembly

APPLAUDS the noble intent behind the Clean Water Act
CONCURS with the basic principles underlying the Clean Water Act
DISMAYED that the Clean Water Act did not address the organization of international efforts to relieve poor, drought-ridden nations, or even attempt to require other nations to recognize the plight of these nations
ALARMED that application of this resolution often relies on selective interpretation of the clauses in writing.

RECOGNIZES with dismay the many shortcomings of the resolution:

1) The resolution is disappointingly vague on important points including, but not limited to:
A) It's first clause, which states without further elaboration, "The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception."
- Further elaboration as to the meaning of 'contamination,' or 'conceivably serve civilians' is absent from the legislation, leaving in doubt what water supplies are affected by the resolution, and what is considered 'contamination' with regards to a water supply.
- The use of nuclear weapons is clearly prohibited by this act, which is completely apart from the intent of the resolution.
B) Its statement that the clause applies 'without exception' seems absurd considering its vague nature.
C) The use of the word 'civilian' in clause 1 seems misplaced, as the rest of the resolution deals with mandates concerning only 'citizens' of member nations, rather than civilians in general.
- The use of the word 'civilian' is further misplaced, as the third line of the resolution reads, "SHOCKED that contamination of water supplies may be used as a military tactic."

2) Its section labeled '3', which states: "All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens."
A) This clause, and all its subclauses make up the section of the resolution intended to ensure drinkable water is available to everyone, however:
- The clause does not apply to non-citizens residing in member nations
- The use of the word 'citizens' in this clause would also force member nations to ensure that expatriates are supplied with water.

3) Its section labeled '3', clause 'iv', which states: "Nations may charge reasonable amounts for water usage, provided such does not impede access."
A) The clause seems to be contradictory, as any price charged for water usage would impede access.
B) By preventing nations from impeding access to water, the resolution greatly reduces the ability of nations to conserve water in times of sustained drought.
C) The clause fails to take into account that some nations may not have the funds to build onto their water infrastructure, and need to charge for its use to maintain its infrastructure.
- Nations in this position may also need to use funds from charging for water to build projects for obtaining water in remote areas.

4) Its section labeled '3', clause 'v,' which requires nations to provide aid to those lacking clean water.
A) The legislation does not address the fact that many nations do not have the power to ensure that the aid provided is actually used to obtain clean water.

HEREBY renders GA Resolution #105, "Clean Water Act" null and void.

[Unibot]

It's first clause

Its first clause.

[Quelesh]

The "minimal amount of potable water" clause is also useless. The "minimal" amount of water means the smallest possible amount of water - i.e. one water molecule. "Minimum amount of potable water necessary to survive" would have made more sense.

[Eireann Fae]

"We support this repeal." Rowan takes her seat and sips her customary glass of water, hoping a sufficient replacement for the resolution in question could be drafted shortly after its repeal...

[Burninati0n]

The "minimal amount of potable water" clause is also useless. The "minimal" amount of water means the smallest possible amount of water - i.e. one water molecule. "Minimum amount of potable water necessary to survive" would have made more sense.

Thank you; we're adding that now.

[Embolalia]

The "minimal amount of potable water" clause is also useless. The "minimal" amount of water means the smallest possible amount of water - i.e. one water molecule. "Minimum amount of potable water necessary to survive" would have made more sense.

Minimum is a noun. Minimal is the adjective form thereof. Thus minimal, in the original text, is an adjective describing the noun amount. It is the smallest quantity which can fulfill the requirements of the clause. (OOC: Mr. Webster backs me up)

The proposed repeal doesn't seem to have changed much since the last failed attempt. I'm not going to waste my time addressing the same failed points that I've already addressed.

[Burninati0n]

Minimum is a noun. Minimal is the adjective form thereof. Thus minimal, in the original text, is an adjective describing the noun amount. It is the smallest quantity which can fulfill the requirements of the clause. (OOC: Mr. Webster backs me up)

The proposed repeal doesn't seem to have changed much since the last failed attempt. I'm not going to waste my time addressing the same failed points that I've already addressed.

The main addition is this:
"- The clause does not apply to non-citizens residing in member nations
- The use of the word 'citizens' in this clause would also force member nations to ensure that expatriates are supplied with water."

Also, as far as addressing the previous points, for the most part, you haven't. The main statement I'd heard from those who had voted against was that the points in the repeal were not substantial enough to justify the repeal.

[Embolalia]

The main addition is this:
"- The clause does not apply to non-citizens residing in member nations
- The use of the word 'citizens' in this clause would also force member nations to ensure that expatriates are supplied with water."

Shouldn't they be? I'll admit, expatriates were not an explicit consideration of mine, but I would consider their accidental inclusion to be positive, if anything. As to foreign citizens, they aren't covered because people kept winging on about illegal immigrants, non-taxpayers, and so forth. That said, it's the only part of your repeal that even resembles a valid point.

Also, as far as addressing the previous points, for the most part, you haven't.

I certainly have. Between the two points you added and the ones I refuted in the linked posts, what else is there?

[Burninati0n]

The problem with each one of your 'refutations' of the statements in the draft is that they fail to directly address the resolution itself.

For example, when confronted with our issue with the lack of definition of the word 'contamination' in the resolution, you sought refuge in the definition provided by the dictionary ("the presence of a minor and unwanted constituent (contaminant) in material"). This is not a refutation or an argument, and it makes up the basis of your defense for nearly every argument we'd presented. Great, you pointed out the definition of the word contamination. The argument is that we're not clear as to what constitutes contamination in a water supply. Is fluoride a contamination? Chlorine? A dictionary provides only the general definition of the word. It is not a substitute for writing a clear resolution.

They're perfectly valid questions, and perfectly valid points, and no amount of dictionary referencing will make up for the fact that in order to apply the Clean Water Act the way you intended it to be applied, you must selectively interpret the resolution.

[Quelesh]

The "minimal amount of potable water" clause is also useless. The "minimal" amount of water means the smallest possible amount of water - i.e. one water molecule. "Minimum amount of potable water necessary to survive" would have made more sense.

Minimum is a noun. Minimal is the adjective form thereof. Thus minimal, in the original text, is an adjective describing the noun amount. It is the smallest quantity which can fulfill the requirements of the clause. (OOC: Mr. Webster backs me up)

Ah, I had forgotten that there was a subclause below that line giving more information about the amount required. Never mind about that point, then.

I still say that "The intentional contamination of any water supply that may conceivably serve civilians is prohibited, for purposes military or otherwise, without exception" prohibits urinating in a toilet, though (as toilet water is a water supply that may conceivably serve civilians and urine is a contaminant).

[Embolalia]

Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time going over arguments you didn't listen to the first time. I did make arguments, some making use of that definition. If you aren't willing to listen, there's no point in repeating them.