NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the third 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 is that I changed the operative clauses to fit the concerns of some member nations. In this draft, I am proposing that an “abundant” nation is made responsible for the water supplies of a “substandard” nation, as opposed to the “extreme” and “draconian” measures suggested in the previous drafts, which stated that an abundant nation was to donate half of its water reserves to needy nations. 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 every decade surveys shall be taken by a multinational UN volunteer corps, which is to be funded by a .03% tax upon foods with over 50 mg of salt per serving, to find out sources of safe water in every nation, how this water is distributed, and how water affects 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 dies from dehydration during the last year; In excess of 2% of the population dies 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 make this water distributed in any community consisting of 10,000 people or more.

Requesting that charity groups deliver water to those who would otherwise be unable to access the supplies, those who would need this service include, but are not limited to;
the elderly, the homeless, and those living in rural outposts. Any charity who takes up this task shall receive a tax benefit to be determined by the sovereign nations in which the charity is based.

Requiring nations with abundant water supplies to “adopt” one nation with substandard water supplies, to assist with water shortages. The sovereign nations will have freedom to fulfill the minimal water needs of the adopted nation in however they possibly can, as long as the adopted nation improves to an “adequate status” by the next survey. No two abundant nations may “adopt” the same nation with substandard water supplies. If the adopted nation does not improve at all, the adopting nation will be subject to fund the next survey, unless the adopting nation has fallen to either adequate or substandard ranking.

A thanks to all nations who responded in the previous posts, I welcome your returned comments, and I await response from others.

On the surface reading of this material, I am concerned only by the requirement of any government to apply for assistance should their water fall to a substandard rating. I feel this is an invasion of sovereignty.

For a complete reading, and before approval is passed, I feel it necessary to await the response and approval of my regional members.

Thank you. You bring up an interesting point, and it will most likely be considered in the final copy. What I want know is more differing viewpoints, I'm inviting all nations to harshly critique this proposal! YAY!

To our worthy UN colleague from the great state of Epopolis, we applaud your continued efforts to draft a proposal which addresses the concerns of my and my fellow member nations' governments with regards to the proposal. However, my government does not believe that the third revision adequately addresses our concerns. Furthermore, the revised draft proposal raises several new issues that we would like to have reviewed. Please see below for our detailed comments:

Declaring that every decade surveys shall be taken by a multinational UN volunteer corps, which is to be funded by a .03% tax upon foods with over 50 mg of salt per serving, to find out sources of safe water in every nation, how this water is distributed, and how water affects the health of the population.
While we applaud the founding of a multinational corps to conduct the survey, we strongly oppose the arbitrary .03% tax upon salty foods. Tax policy should be an issue stricly outside the jurisdiction of the UN. Crushinatoria's citizens are already overly taxed thanks to the ill-conceived policies of previous Crushinatorian administrations. We believe that funding for the survey corps should be allocated from the existing UN budget. Should the existing budget prove insufficient to fund the corps, then voluntary contributions should be asked of member nations. The GDoC would certainly be able to contribute funds to the mission of the survey corps. However, we restate our strong opposition to the proposed tax and ask that it be stricken from the proposal.

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

Requiring nations with adequate water supplies to make this water distributed in any community consisting of 10,000 people or more.

Requesting that charity groups deliver water to those who would otherwise be unable to access the supplies, those who would need this service include, but are not limited to;
the elderly, the homeless, and those living in rural outposts. Any charity who takes up this task shall receive a tax benefit to be determined by the sovereign nations in which the charity is based.

Requiring nations with abundant water supplies to “adopt” one nation with substandard water supplies, to assist with water shortages. The sovereign nations will have freedom to fulfill the minimal water needs of the adopted nation in however they possibly can, as long as the adopted nation improves to an “adequate status” by the next survey. No two abundant nations may “adopt” the same nation with substandard water supplies. If the adopted nation does not improve at all, the adopting nation will be subject to fund the next survey, unless the adopting nation has fallen to either adequate or substandard ranking.
My government feels that these requirements continue to unacceptably intrude upon member nations' national sovereignty. Additionally, we feel that the "adoption" provisions are unworkable and that their inclusion in the proposal is somewhat arbitrary. We suggest that the above-quoted passages be stricken and replaced with language establishing an international water provision body whose sole purpose would be aid water-poor nations in acquiring adequate water supplies through means such as well construction, desalinization plant construction, water recycling programs, and other established methods.

Until such time as the above-reference changes are made, my government will continue to urge our regional delegate to withhold her approval from any proposal that may emerge from the current language.

Respectfully submitted,

Dearest Crushinatoria,

Thank you for your input. I strongly agree with your stance on the taxing, I just was throwing ideas out there. Now, while I see your point in the " water provision body ", I see it as wasteful. Honestly, why spend UN money into aquiring more water when it is already available in many nations. I refuse to compromise to that extent. To be frank, your idea would create more beauracracy, not to mention that it is a little vague, I tend not to support the formation of "bodies" and "committees" because they are not really possible in the UN NS, and their purposes can met without their creation. Thank you, but I'm going to wait to see what others think.

This is better. I'm happy to notice several points I brought up were adressed. I have a few things to say:

1) What happens if the substandard nations do not cooperate? They need to take some responsibility themselves, adopting nations shouldn't have to take complete responsibility for another nation.

2) What happens if their are more nations in need then nations that can help?

3) Nations need to have some benefit from having an abundant water supply, or else they won't have any reason to do it. Why have an abundant supply if you just have to give it away without any benefit? I'm not sure how to work this in.

4) Some regions have more water then others. Their are disadvantages and advantages, and water is one of them. Some areas naturally don't have alot of water, but are more abundant in other resources, while other regions have lots of water but aren't as abundant in other resources. It isn't fair to nations with an abundant source of water to eliminate the benefit they can get from trading water, or to make other regions rich by getting rid of the disadvantage of having to import water.

I agree with Crushinatoria about this. Your current idea about adopting also requires lots of beuracracy and roll playing. It would not be neccesary for us to actually create the commitie, we could just assume it existed, like we would assume the adoption idea would.

Okay, here are my thoughts.

I still firmly believe their are too many committees, but I am willing to make compromise on other issues. That we should make applying if you are a substandard country optional, and abundant participtation mandatory, except in nations with a population of 500 million or lower, where it would be optional because they may need the water to expand, and in cases where the country has a UN Economic Rating of anything below Average, because they may need the water for agriculture and expansion, and it maybe too financially taxing for them to donate at the present time. The money shall be taken out of the UN budget, and monetary donations will be readily accepted.

Now, here is my case for the "adoption" system. First off, a substandard nation can now opt-out of the program if they refuse to participate. Also, since you can choose your adopted nation, an abundant nation can also apply to stop assissting their current adopted nation and apply for another one. Reasons shall be given by the abundant nation and an inquiry will be formed to see if the nation with substandard is being cooperative. Both nations must agree to the adoptee-adopted set-up, although the abundant nation selects, the adopted can accept or decline.

To deal with concerns that their may be more nations in need than those who can assist, which is most likely true. A scaling system of minimums will be set up, something along the lines of:
Population 0- 500 million has to adopt 0 nations
500 million+ has to adopt 1 nation of 50% or greater population in relation to the adopting nation, OR can adopt several smaller nations as long as the combined populations of the adopted nations meet or exceed the population of the adopting nation.

Abundant Nations who participate sucessfully in the program can collect a .5% tax upon the population of the adopted nation, if they wish and, if all requirements are met.

Thank you.

Thats alot better. The only concern I still have is that under your revision it is still likely that their will be more nations that want help then nations that can give it. I'm not sure what to do about it (hopefully you can think of something).

Even if the above concern is not addresed (though it would be better if it was), I will endorse this proposal (assuming you stand behind your changes) when it gets submited.

Much Thanks. I am currently working on the final draft, and I will be at least try to solve your stated problem.

Note: I will be posting this one final time before it is proposed. However, I am still waiting for more input on the current draft.

-Thank you