NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the second draft; I’m open to any criticism and comments. I’m wondering if my categorization is correct. Thank you. The largest difference between this one and the previous one, is that more specifics in the operative clauses. Thank you again.
Safe Water Access Act
Proposed by Epopolis
1st Draft
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

Noticing, that water is essential to human life, and that a person both subsists of, and subsides upon water.

Realizing, that water is also fundamental to agriculture, which is in turn fundamental to human life.

Troubled by, the amounts of people who suffer and die, due to lack of water, either through dehydration, starvation or any of the other many maladies and diseases that are created by a lack of water.

Noting further, that some nations are abundant in water supply, while others have very little safe water.

We the sovereign nations of the United Nations are hereby:

Declaring that annual surveys shall be taken to find out sources of safe water in every nation, how this water is distributed, and how water effects the health of the population. Sources of water can come in any form that is readily usable. Still water, stagnant water, and infected waters are not counted as water sources. Saltwater can only be counted as a water source if it is determined that the UN Economic Strength Level in that nation is steadily at or above Thriving.

Resolving that the aforementioned survey shall be used to determine if the nation’s water supplies are supplying enough to sustain the population of that nation, and that based on that information nations be placed into three groups:

1) Substandard- Water supply is not sustaining life in the nation. In excess of 1% of the population die from dehydration during the last year; In excess of 2% of the population die of starvation directly related to the lack of water’s effects on agriculture, in the last year. However, a nation does not meet criteria for substandard status if:
- It is shown by the data that adequate or better water supplies are available in the nation at the present time.
- It is shown by the data that the deaths in dehydration were not caused by lack of water access, but instead due to other reasons (such as, an immobile elderly person cannot access water due to lack of help, not lack of access, and in the several cases of sports-related dehydration deaths. Cholera, and such other diseases, that come about due to lack of safe water, that cause dehydration deaths, are accepted as lack of water deaths.
-It is shown by the data that the deaths by starvation due to lack of water’s effects on agriculture are aided by excessive or forced growing of cash crops in the nation.

2) Adequate- Water supply is sustaining life in the nation. Less than 1% of the population dies of dehydration; less than 2% of the population dies from starvation directly related to lack of water. Definitions of dehydration and starvation due to lack of water are subject to the reasoning held in previous statements.

3) Abundant- Water supply is in excess of minimum life sustaining levels. Less than .01% of the population dies of dehydration or starvation due to lack of water’s effects upon agriculture. The nation has not had an extreme drought in the past 3 years. Definitions of dehydration and starvation due to lack of water are subject to the reasoning held in previous statements. The nation must also have various reservoirs and other back-up water supplies to qualify for abundant status.


Demanding that all UN nations follow the requirements placed upon the governments, based upon its placement.

Requiring nations with substandard water supplies apply for water assistance through the UN.

Requiring nations with adequate water supplies to distribute this water amongst its people, so that everyone has access to safe water.

Requiring nations with abundant water supplies to donate a portion of at least 50% of their excess safe water. This donation must be separated between 2 different nations who apply for water assistance through the UN.

Note: you can view the previous draft and the other water resolution in this forum and compare all them here. Thank you.

This is a great and well thought out resolution.

I'm a little concerned about the "annual" surveys, as it sounds like a lot of effort for informaiton which tends to be more constant over time, (I think a survey every other year or every five years might be just as effective) but it's nothing that would cause me to change my support.

I also think that non safe water should be considered as an option for nations where it migt be more economical for other nations to invest in water purification technologies (or other systems) over bulk shipment of the safe water, as long as those technolgies really make the water safe.

For example, in some areas of the world, massive storms can cause flooding, resulting in overflows of the sewer treatment plants and contaminating the general water supply. Transport of pure water is one possible short term solution, but funding projects that prevent the flood damage in the first place is probably a better long term solution.

Another problem is that diverting "safe" water from regions where it is abundant to regios where it is not abundant can cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife where these safe water flows are vital for sustaining the local environment. It might encourage population growth in areas where safe water supplies are low thus fostering a dependancy on the UN.

Still, considering the general nature of the problem, I think I can definitely support the resolution.

Greetings Epopolis, :)

This is a place holder, large post in + 12 hours when I get up.

Suffice for now to say, I like your humanitarian intent, but dislike what I see as draconian measures to enforce global U.N. backed water-based socialism, in that I also find the idea mercenary in distributing materials freely admitted as vital to life about with no control by the sov. nation of initial recent origin, and dislike its similarity in this regard to that cursed U.N. blood bank/organ service ... thing. I think it equal, I'm afraid, to slicing up and rationing amoung nations such things as nitrogen and common breathable air ...

* Also, something about it makes N.S. sound like Dune, ;)

I'll come back in the morning to actually explain ...

* Until then, " Argh ! Let go of my throat ! "

My government wishes to thank the esteemed representative of the Most Holy City of Epopolis for bringing this proposal up for debate. While my the government of the Grand Duchy of Crushinatoria (GDoC) shares the worthy desire that all NS inhabitants should have access to safe supplies of water, we feel that this proposal is lacking in several imporant aspects. At issue are the following passages (with our comments following):

Declaring that annual surveys shall be taken to find out sources of safe water in every nation, how this water is distributed, and how water effects the health of the population.
My government feels that this requirement is an unnecessary intrusion upon the sovereignty of member nations and places an unfair burden on the GDoC's already limited national budget. We feel that the aforementioned annual survey is a function best left to a UN agency rather than member nations. By putting responsibility for the survey into the capable hands of the UN, the data collected will more accurately reflect the global water supply as some member nations may feel compelled to understate their actual water supplies in order to escape the redistribution requirements of the proposal or to qualify for unneeded assistance depending on their respective national water supplies.

Requiring nations with adequate water supplies to distribute this water amongst its people, so that everyone has access to safe water.
We feel that this requirment is, to put it mildly, overly simplistic. Under the terms of this requirement, theoretically, should a citizen of my nation decide to set up residence in the middle of the Great Crushinatorian Desert, it would be my government's responsibility to provide said person with safe water access despite the illogic of deciding to live in a barren, waterless wasteland. Again, we feel that this requirement places an undue burden on our limited budget and violates our sovereign right to govern our citizens as we wish. My government respectfully notes that this requirement need be stricken from any future resolution should our vote be desired.

Requiring nations with abundant water supplies to donate a portion of at least 50% of their excess safe water. This donation must be separated between 2 different nations who apply for water assistance through the UN.
This final requirement seems to have been added without adequate consideration of its effects. Nations with an overabundance of fresh water could be financially ruined by onerous requirements that they redistribute 50% of their excess safe water to needy nations. Two-thirds of the earth's fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. Many nations thus blessed tend to have vastly overabundant water supplies. Requiring them to donate 50% of this supply to needy nations is not feasible. My government respectfully requests that this requirement be stricken from the proposal.

Overall, we feel that the ideals of this proposal are good and have our support. However, the execution of this proposal is overly simplistic in its process at best and financially ruinous at worst. The survey of the world's water supply is a laudable objective and will have our full support should its compilation be adjusted to be performed by the UN instead of by member states. We further believe that a milder resolution urging member nations to provide fresh water to their populace without specifically requiring it would also gain our support. Unfortunately, any resolution stemming unchanged from the current wording would receive my government's immediate condemnation and we would work with like-minded nations to bring about its defeat should it come to a vote.

Respectfully submitted this Sixth day of August, 2004.

To the great nation of Epopolis:

I too, would like to express my congratulations for a well attempted proposal, but must agree with the wise and valid points made by my regional colleague nation Crushinatoria.

Therefore, as regional delegate, I can not offer support of this proposal until such time that all nations within my region feel comfortable with the proposal.