NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings to all National Leaders!

As some of you might know, I have created the Basic Water Supply Act a short while ago and I am sure that those of you who are already familiar with it (and have even supported it) will still remember it as being a proposal meant to uplift the basic standards of living. Although the proposal has been up for nomination, it has not been able to reach the required number of votes.
Thus I have decided to once again put the proposal up for perusal and comment from fellow leaders and representatives.
I realized that many people feared resolutions which could adversely affect their tax rates, and suggest an addition to the proposal of a grace period, underlined below and poorly worded (some help with the phrasing would be appreciated) for you to comment on.
Also, and more importantly, would the addition of such a clause be allowed under the current laws of the NSUN?


PROPOSAL:
BASIC WATER SUPPLY ACT
To provide for the rights of free access to basic water supply and basic sanitation;

ACKNOWLEDGING
-that all spheres of Government must strive to provide water supply services and sanitation services sufficient for subsistence and sustainable economic activity;

RECOGNIZING
-that water is a scarce and unevenly distributed resource which occurs in many different
forms which are all part of a unitary, interdependent cycle;

UNDERSTANDING
-that not all peoples are able to afford the basics needed for day-to-day living.
____________________________________

The main object of this Act is to provide for:
The right of access to free basic water supply and the right to basic sanitation;

-Subject to the national water resource strategy, the Minister may determine this basic water supply quantity.

-A person may use water in or from a water resource for purposes such as reasonable domestic use, domestic gardening, animal watering, fire fighting and recreational use.

-The consumer may, at the water service providers discretion, pay for any water-usage, over and above the free basic water supply.

-Procedures for the limitation or discontinuation of water services must not result in a person being denied access to basic water services for non-payment, where that person proves, to the satisfaction of the relevant water services provider, that he or she is unable to pay for basic services.

-If the water services provided by a water services institution are unable to meet the requirements of all its existing consumers, it must give preference to the provision of basic water supply and basic sanitation to them.

-Governments not currently meeting the requirements for this proposal shal be given a grace period of ten years in which to comply to this law.
__________________________

“basic sanitation”
-including but not limited to the prescribed minimum standard of services necessary for the safe, hygienic and adequate collection, removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage from households, including informal households;

“basic water supply”
-the prescribed minimum standard of water supply necessary for the reliable supply of a sufficient quantity and quality of treated, clean water to households, including informal households, to support life and personal hygiene;

“consumer”
-any end user who receives water services from a water services provider, including an end user in an informal settlement;

“water services provider''
-any person, institution, company, authority or any other body responsible for the provision of water to consumers under this resolution;
__________________________________

When I last posted this Proposal for comment, I was asked why it would be necessary, as, according to the poster, people will always live near water. I, along with other members of the UN, pointed out to the questioner that that is not always the case. In many countries, people are displaced, mistreated and abandoned by their governments. These people are then left to fend for themselves in harsh conditions, with little or no infrastructure. It is for this reason that I created this proposal.

I will now be more than happy to field any questions or concerns you may have regarding this act.

Epopolis encourages the idea in it's vaguest form, but politely rejects this proposal for several reasons:
1) It leaves to much room for corruption, if each minister of each nation (assumming it as one) determines the basic water supply.
2) It assumes that every nation has a water supply to distribute, many are desert nations, how are they to comply?

Now if that is not a coincidence of the strangers sort - two water proposals within the same hour!
To the leader of Epopolis - your objections have been noted. Here are my replies:

Epopolis encourages the idea in it's vaguest form, but politely rejects this proposal for several reasons:
1) It leaves to much room for corruption, if each minister of each nation (assumming it as one) determines the basic water supply.

I suggest the following change then:
-Subject to the national water resource strategy, the Government/Leaders may determine this basic water supply quantity.
Regarding the corruption concern:

“water services provider''
-any person, institution, company, authority or any other body responsible for the provision of water to consumers under this resolution;

While I recognize that no single body or corporation is perfect and without fault, I would also like to point out that there are many companies all over the world, supplying any form of produce and or merchandise imaginable. The water service provider would then ultimately be responsible for this.

2) It assumes that every nation has a water supply to distribute, many are desert nations, how are they to comply?

For this reason, I was willing to consider a pact of sorts with you: we could combine our resolutions in a way, thereby making it better. But of course that is up to you.

It seems that our proposals address very different matters. Mine addresses more how to share water amongst nations, and yours addresses more the need for nations to have safe water for the people. Noting this, I believe that we should see what others have to say about both, and let's encourage them to look at both, see what they have to say, and then take a course of action from that point forward.

Thank you.

Honorable member Epopolis:
First of all, allow me to apologise for the late reply (Diva-Rule was closed for a long-weekend in celebration of Women) and, secondly, thank for the feed-back - it is much appreciated.
We should see if we can drum up support for both our proposals (though at the moment that would seem to be somewhat difficult, as we cannot even drum up replies to our posts).

In many countries, people are displaced, mistreated and abandoned by their governments. These people are then left to fend for themselves in harsh conditions, with little or no infrastructure. It is for this reason that I created this proposal.

So you think passing a proposal will make it all better?

If that was the case there would be no crime, since laws have been passed!

So you think passing a proposal will make it all better?

Is that not what the NSUN does: Pass proposals in order to make things "better"?

If that was the case there would be no crime, since laws have been passed!
I fail to see how you can compare crime to giving people water. Crime is controlled by the police; there is nobody making sure that everyone has enough drinkable water.


The honorable member of Gurning seems to doubt that the NSUN has any strength to change things for the better. If passing resolutions has never helped anyone, then what is the point of all the resolutions that have been proposed and passed since the NSUN was first created?

For those who are still in doubt, just say the world and I shal give a real-world example of how a similar proposal has helped people?

Those nations that care about their citizens don't need this proposal. Those who you are aiming for will ignore it.

These people are going to suffer anyway, no matter what the UN says or does. Thats life.

Suppose a nation ignores this latest UN dictat? What would be the UN response? More than likely sanctions ala Iraq leading to more civilian deaths.

The point of all the proposals is the UN is gradually trying to make a one world government. Though it'll never work since the UN doesn't, that is the goal behind all these proposals.

By your own logic Gurning, we should abolish the UN as it will never be able to make a difference. It is with proposals that care for the people that changes are made.

We would be in a bad way generally if the UN rejected any proposal which attempted to better the status quo outright. All of our countries have been affected by proposals which seek to make things better.

Refusing the validity of this approach to politics would have been like telling Mother Teresa not to bother.

Hi, again, I believe that what Gruning is trying to say is that the proposal is too broad and not specific in how it will be enacted. I've put ALOT of work into my proposal "Safe Water Access Act" which I invite you all to comment upon in this forum. It is know in it's 4th and hopefully final draft.

Thank you.

Yes I do think that the UN should be abolished.

Any budding Mother Theresa's, charities, religous groups, corporations and government up to the national level, if they choose to do so, should bother.

An international one size fits all organisation like the UN shouldn't.

Well, I suppose that's your right as an individual. If you don't mind though, I think I'll go on believing in hope and helping other people...

Yes I do think that the UN should be abolished.

You are, of course, welcome to start the process by leaving it.

Done that and got a puppet for regional security.

Ideally the UNs time for me would be taken up with fluff.

Frankly I have seen far too many 'at the expense of business' proposals or 'new regulations for...'

Fine. So vote with your feet. Your principles oppose tyranny of the majority, do they? Perhaps you don't notice that you're trying to thwart the majority's will, which is just a different kind of tyranny.

This proposal seems pretty good, only thing I would like to see is implications on how nations should acomplish this. You might also be over the character limit too. Someone told me it was 3,500 characters.

It seems that our proposals address very different matters. Mine addresses more how to share water amongst nations, and yours addresses more the need for nations to have safe water for the people. Noting this, I believe that we should see what others have to say about both, and let's encourage them to look at both, see what they have to say, and then take a course of action from that point forward.

My apologies for not having looked at the Epopolis proposal yet, however, the basic idea that people should have a "baseline" water supply is something my society agrees with.

But I think your above suggestion is a very positive and well taken point: when there are multiple proposals that might look similar, nations should look at both ideas. That said, there is most certainly a pressing international need to deal with transboundary water issues, and I'd like to thank any nation for attempting to bring this issue forward.

This proposal seems pretty good, only thing I would like to see is implications on how nations should acomplish this. You might also be over the character limit too. Someone told me it was 3,500 characters.

Perhaps a slight renaming (only if necessary) to something along the lines of:

Water Baseline Rights in the title (which always has to be short) and then a statement repeated in the description calling this resolution a "Declaration of Baseline Water Rights"?

Ahhhh! Finally we are getting somewhere!
I will be looking at the suggestions posted and working them into the proposal (which I will repost later), but first of all, I want to reply some of the posts:

Yes I do think that the UN should be abolished.

And with that you have just removed yourself from my consideration.

I believe that what Gruning is trying to say is that the proposal is too broad and not specific in how it will be enacted.
If you could point out to me which parts of the proposal you find unclear, I would Love to clear it up/make it less "broad".

I've put ALOT of work into my proposal "Safe Water Access Act" which I invite you all to comment upon in this forum.
Thereby implying that no work has gone into this proposal? As I mentioned before, this proposal has gone through many drafts, with many NSUN members giving me their help and support in defining it, rewording it, etc, when it was first posted for comment months ago.
I myself will be looking at your proposal before the day is over and commenting or suggesting if I can.

...only thing I would like to see is implications on how nations should acomplish this.
Simply by laying new water-pipes, sinking bore-holes, erecting water-towers or water reservoirs, building water treatment plants, etc, in areas where there's no such water-providing inftrastructures. In rural communities, especially, the addition of one communal tap could bring untold relief, especially when these people had been forced to rely on unsafe/untreated water sources, such as rivers or streams, which could possibly be contaminated.
Would I have to include something to this extent in the proposal itself?

You might also be over the character limit too. Someone told me it was 3,500 characters.
I just did a word count - 2100 characters, so I am still safe if 3,500 is the limit.

Perhaps a slight renaming (only if necessary) to something along the lines of:

Water Baseline Rights in the title (which always has to be short) and then a statement repeated in the description calling this resolution a "Declaration of Baseline Water Rights"?
Thank you for your suggestions! I will attempt to work it into the proposal. You help is truly appreciated!

Simply by laying new water-pipes, sinking bore-holes, erecting water-towers or water reservoirs, building water treatment plants, etc, in areas where there's no such water-providing inftrastructures. In rural communities, especially, the addition of one communal tap could bring untold relief, especially when these people had been forced to rely on unsafe/untreated water sources, such as rivers or streams, which could possibly be contaminated.
Would I have to include something to this extent in the proposal itself?

Not necessarily. This is one area it'd be good to leave open for nations to choose the method best suited to their climate and geography. If there's room without going over the character limit, you could list some of the above methods but make clear that they're only suggestions.

In the proposal... "Governments not currently meeting the requirements for this proposal shal be given a grace period of ten years in which to comply to this law."

Please excuse my pedantry:

"shall", not "shal"
"...to comply with...", not "...to comply to..."

These minor quibbles aside, I believe this is close to being a very fine proposal. Good luck.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Once again, I would like to thank everyone for their valuable input!
Varia Yefremova, I thank you for spotting my horrid use of the English language and correcting those mistakes... *drops head in shame*
I have made the changes I could and this is where the proposal currently stands (changes in italics):

PROPOSAL:
BASIC WATER SUPPLY ACT
To provide for the rights of free access to baseline water supply and basic sanitation;

ACKNOWLEDGING
-that all spheres of Government must strive to provide water supply services and sanitation services sufficient for subsistence and sustainable economic activity;

RECOGNIZING
-that water is a scarce and unevenly distributed resource which occurs in many different forms which are all part of a unitary, interdependent cycle;

UNDERSTANDING
-that not all peoples are able to afford the basics needed for day-to-day living.
____________________________________

The main object of this Act is to provide for:
The right of access to free baseline water supply and the right to basic sanitation;

-Subject to the national water resource strategy, the Minister may determine this basic water supply quantity.

-A person may use water in or from a water resource for purposes such as reasonable domestic use, domestic gardening, animal watering, fire fighting and recreational use.

-The consumer may, at the water service providers discretion, pay for any water-usage, over and above the free basic water supply.

-Procedures for the limitation or discontinuation of water services must not result in a person being denied access to basic water services for non-payment, where that person proves, to the satisfaction of the relevant water services provider, that he or she is unable to pay for basic services.

-If the water services provided by a water services institution are unable to meet the requirements of all its existing consumers, it must give preference to the provision of basic water supply and basic sanitation to them.

-Governments not currently meeting the requirements for this proposal shall be given a grace period of ten years in which to comply with this law.

-In order to comply with this Act, water service providers may, in areas where there are no water-providing infrastructures:
- lay new water-pipes,
- sink bore-holes,
- erect water-towers or water reservoirs,
- build water treatment plants, etc,

__________________________

“basic sanitation”
-including but not limited to the prescribed minimum standard of services necessary for the safe, hygienic and adequate collection, removal, disposal or purification of human excreta, domestic waste-water and sewage from households, including informal households;

“basic water supply”
-the prescribed minimum standard of water supply necessary for the reliable supply of a sufficient quantity and quality of treated, clean water to households, including informal households, to support life and personal hygiene;

“consumer”
-any end user who receives water services from a water services provider, including an end user in an informal settlement;

“water services provider''
-any person, institution, company, authority or any other body responsible for the provision of water to consumers under this resolution;