GA Resolution: Repeal "Clean Water Act"

[Ananke II]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Repeal "Clean Water Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#107
Proposed by: BURNINATI0N


Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #107: Clean Water Act (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: 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

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', 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.

3) 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.

[Walabamba]

I can see the flaws in the original resolution and I could see it being changed, I'm for.

[Pompadoodle]

This is a tricky one.

I liked the original resolution. It isn't perfect, though. With regard to the repeal proposal:

- I disagree that the original resolution prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. Using nukes does contaminate water supplies, but only incidentally. Lots of other things contaminate water supplies too- for example most industrial activity. But we don't classify (say) steel manufacture as an intentional contamination of water supplies. Similarly with nuclear weapons.

- The citizen/ civilian issue is indeed problematic.

- The issue of charges/ impeding usage is something that can be settled locally within individual jurisdictions. What level of charges would constitute 'impeding' will vary enormously from place to place.

- I'm not convinced that the resolution reduces the ability of nations to conserve water in droughts. The best interpretation would seem to me that nations have a duty to minimize the overall level of impediments to accessing sufficient water. Since nothing impedes an individual's access to water like a drought does, this would certainly allow for conservation measures. And in fact clause 4(iv) of the original resolution specifically allows rationing, an extreme form of water conservation.

So overall, I'm not convinced by the criticisms in the repeal proposal. I think that the original, while not perfect, is worth keeping. Count me AGAINST.

[Takaram]

I would say that the old resolution would be better than nothing, which, in all honesty, if we pass this, would be what we would have. AGAINST.

[Anime Daisuki]

- 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.

This is nit-picking. Contamination is exactly that. Contamination. Ask any 5 year old and he can tell you that murky water is unsafe to drink. Why do we need to explain every term? This is why we get dictionary sized bills in Congress these days. The Healthcare Reform Bill is 2700 pages long. 30 years before, the Social Security Act was only 64 pages.

2) 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.

This is nit-picking. I don't see anything wrong with the phrase "Nations may charge reasonable amounts". If someone has to have "reasonable amounts" explained to him/her, then frankly, that person lacks common sense.

The reasons given are forced, and tenuous at best.

AGAINST

-AD

[lowetania]

As a newcomer (please dont tell the noob hunters) I could see how the original item might be flawed but it might have been better, rather than asking for its total scrapping to ask for it to be replaced by ... and then the new article, with the various corrections in place could be accepted or rejected.

As for overall repeal of what sound like a worthy document I would be against I think.

[Harpoon Man Henrik]

Aug 23, 2010 22:51:59 GMT -5 @lowetania said:

As a newcomer (please dont tell the noob hunters) I could see how the original item might be flawed but it might have been better, rather than asking for its total scrapping to ask for it to be replaced by ... and then the new article, with the various corrections in place could be accepted or rejected.

As for overall repeal of what sound like a worthy document I would be against I think.

Unfortunately, a WA resolution can't be amended directly. It has to be repealed entirely and then replaced with a new resolution. This was mainly because people/nations were "amending" passed resolutions to change their meanings entirely.

[lowetania]

Thanks Harpoon Man for the clarification.

[Burnination]

Takaram and Lowetania 'better than nothing':
This is a silly argument. The resolution's original writer is still active. A repeal now would allow the author to rewrite the resolution with no errors. Having no resolution preventing countries from purposely dehydrating their citizens (an event that almost never occurs) for a few weeks seems like hardly a sacrifice for a better resolution.

Anime Diasuki:
We need to define contamination because there is a gray area. How about fluoride? Is that contamination? It certainly makes the water less pure, which fits the definition of contamination. But it's for health benefits. Is it illegal or not?

[ImperialPoland]

FOR

makes a good enough argument to get my vote...

[Cerb]

I think the repeal is just splitting hairs. I'm against.

[Takaram]

Burnination: How many times has the idea of "Repeal and replace" been brought up, and, after the repeal, people just let the idea die, and we wind up in the same place we were before the resolution passed in the first place?

[Burnination]

Aug 24, 2010 19:50:13 GMT -5 Takaram said:

Burnination: How many times has the idea of "Repeal and replace" been brought up, and, after the repeal, people just let the idea die, and we wind up in the same place we were before the resolution passed in the first place?

Many, but this is still an invalid argument. Admitting that I support the idea of the Clean Water Act, and so do some of the repeal's supporters, there is no reason that the resolution couldn't be rewritten.

The Clean Water Act passed in its flawed state. It'd have no reason not to pass if it were rewritten better.

[Takaram]

But what exactly about it really needs to be improved? I don't see anything in the repeal that makes it worthy of passing.

[Echolilia]

"Repeal "Clean Water Act"" was defeated 3,192 votes to 2,257.