What Cars Shood I Use To Convert To Electric

discussed? The new law on waters of Galicia

will then shaping the debate that is going on within the ESF Galicia on this bill, adopted on November 4, 2011 the Parliament of Galicia , published in the DOG on 18 November, a month after entering into force. Here you can see the Law and more recently the draft Statute of the Waters of Galicia that is on public display and develop their own law. Participated in the debate with comments on entry!

---------------------------------------------
Participant 1 .

I'll tell you a story ...

My father, aged 30, and the other villagers decided to take the water from various sources of our three mountains to bring water to the village, and thus not having to go all the neighbors to get water the only fountain in the middle of the village (which were dry in summer) and one that is near the river, about 400 meters from my house.

After 20 years, I'm your son, I participated in the renovation of the sources in the preparation of some deposits and the design of a chamber of water distribution more efficient and equitable taking advantage of the sloping field to store water and this came to the village by gravity. We thus obtain an efficient use of water. Similarly we, the neighbors of the village, which twice a year review the facilities, repair leaks or defects in the entire facility. But

but arrived on November 4, 2010, which privatized the water in Galicia. Being human consists of H2O molecules in my cells, the Junta of Galicia by the company Aguas de Portugal privatizing the water around the country, that is, starting next Jan. 26 that approves this law, the Kale will have to pay for being Kale, and being composed of H2O in our molecules.

If this sounds crazy is what sets this law. A covert privatization by the Junta de Galicia, the country's waters. Any Portuguese
must pay a fee for water that will be a fixed part of € 2.50 and a variable second [...] consumption.

In the cities, so people think it is a price increase, but in villages, which are the ones who manage, those who create, care for and protect the aquifers we see that it is a privatization of water, and not as a "help" improve water management in Galicia, which is what we want to sell.

I put the example of my home because it is obvious what they do. In my house are three people you do not have municipal water, depend on water from sources that we find ourselves. The Board obligaranos payable Fixed quota of € 7.5 and about 12 € per share variable water consumption because yes, because we have no water treatment or brought. In addition to paying the corresponding rate of sanitation, for a service which, as I said we do not.

is the same as in obligasen to pay for breathing, as we live in Galicia in Portugal have to pay € 20 per month for breathing. In this case, the Galician'll pay for water, though drink-Cola in the Gali bañemos in donkey's milk.

So ESF-Galicia to take part in this fight because it says so our mission: "Building a just and caring global society, putting technology to work for human development" is necessary take that privatization covert coordinator Portuguese NGO, different social networks, and defend the gratuity of water is a good of every human person, not a private company, call Waters of Galicia, or political party or private company that depends.

commend that leads to the law, we are not "puppets" in the hands of an "enlightened" and that we must protest, pending the time of the revolt and impago a rate of privatization of water, which is a right for all people just as they are in Salvador or in Olhão.

-------------------------

Participant 2.

I have not clear that it is a privatization of water, no company will benefit from the money raised but it will only reinvest in water-related activities.

For ro ot side I feel good that not only charged for sanitation and the supply but also takes into account the environmental costs of resource extraction, use, and pollution.
Perhaps the canon is not just on their way to be calculated, but so far I have not understood the problem with the concept itself of the water canon.
For example, right now the Water Framework Directive requires all water bodies to achieve good status for the year 2015, however, will have to follow, take some measurements ... carrying costs ... What I mean is that not all water-related expenditure is associated with the provision of supplies or sanitation service, and I feel good that we are aware that these costs exist and assume.

-------------------------------------

Participant 3.

Eu é Lei think this inxusta but I think [...] that the matter goes on the canon that [...] are to be charged not only by consuming water, is the use of sanitation, as well as to speak of exemptions from payment says
"Also ... declare that subject (the payment) agricultural practices, forestry and farming, although it makes an exception for aquelescasos especially where there is contamination or in the event of discharges of public sanitation. "(that is, here goes everyone because everyone dumped in public sanitation)

Pro where she is completely unclear why the application rate is the following:

"The rationale between the rate and the coefficient of discharge for purification systems is twofold: on the one hand, this duality is used to recover environmental costs referred to the Water Framework Directive and, secondly, to allow for
principles such as solidarity and justice intraterritorial. "

Finally, we say they do not pay for consumed water use will pay for sanitation.

----------------------------
Participant 4.

Welcome to the discussion of water in Galicia, which is very well that this is wrong because we will help you manage water in the south are not here we agreed on this subject. In the background is a debate that is in society, but which to me is very funny. I'm certainly learning a lot about how the world really misguided politics, the media and how society reacts against the impulses that arrive.

The Water Law was approved in Parliament on 18 November and is already in force, from one month thereafter. This law eliminates the rate of sanitation (which does not pay, podédelo see on the receipt of water in cities and towns) and deploys the water canon. The rate of sanitation only could be used for investments in sanitation and cleaning, and rate of water can be used for any investment cycle full of water, including supply, quality control of the waters of strokes.

First the background: we must all contribute to the recovery of water costs. " The debate is there, but the EU says RECORD should be, and the autonomous communities in which they will renew the lexislaciónde waters are deploying because it is considered the most fair (especially in Catalonia, Valencia Asturias, the Balearic Islands, Aragon, Cantabria, La Rioja, Navarra and the Basque Country). In these places, the equivalent rate of the water in the valley around the world.

In Galicia the user communities and autoabastecementos (wells) until they were practically exempt from paying the fee for sanitation, since it did not consider themselves obliged to pay the inhabitants of nuclei with less than 2000 inhabitants. Now this exemption will be deleted, so the user communities come to pay. But the rate of water is not related to the sanitation service or supply is not for this. It is for:

- Extend your networks and sewerage, or make new purification, for those who can not count on these services.

- The control of water quality, control of evictions, the processing of permits and concessions, control of EDAR, the drafting and monitoring of hydrological planning ... This is several million per year, which benefit everyone.

¿this Vale CTS 43 per month per family?

Therefore, these services makes no sense to pay only in the cities. In fact, the highest investment per capita in rural areas because of the spread of the Galician population is such that the costs of infrastructure are multiplying. This investment or exits European funds, which are over, or taxes. Even so, as I knew it would be a culture shock, the user communities and private wells fáiselles a discount of 90%. Would be 80%, but noted that Parliament had risen to 90% exemption. Therefore, the numbers that we, Jose, you must multiply by 0.1 (which gives a scandalous 43 cents per month for a family of 3). I see it unfair for city dwellers, who pay 10 times more water rate will receive the same service when you fall for it. For as you pay your user community, the city pays the service supply and sanitation as something apart from the value of water (until now the rate of sanitation).

The terms of privatization, Aguas de Galicia, etc., the truth is that we understand them, there is no discussion here. Waters of Galicia is as public as the rest of the Government, and the water is not charged by private water rate for the entire world. In fact, it's public, why, and so little is said, now pay water rate all that use, including hydropower, or establishment, etc.. It's like saying that Social Security is private because you need to pay it. In fact that someone says that something is privatized public tax stunning. And defend the gratuity of water is already full. I bag completing your mail that your water is yours, and you do not have to pay anyone for it. Now that it is privatized.

-------------------------------------------- --------------------

Participant 5.

I do not know, that the benefits reflected in their own sanitation and water purification sounds good, and recovery can reduce consumption sometimes disproportionate ... but nor do I think will do well with the benefits-had time to invest in sanitation and purification when there was apreturas and now say they want to reduce debt-to-understand or that cover services to those who do not have them or have already paid them in your pocket. They have the same rights of access to water a person from another country and a city.

The worst pint has is to charge for water itself, not by supply network or sanitation or so it infects. The we get.
What about the controversy of "privatization" of water: it is not the same as dealing with the Board, that makes Waters of Galicia, which is a company on a public, but open to private concessions, and seeing the drift neoliberal government Current ... for there to Medina that changes hands chase open the door of the market.

-------------------------------------- Participant 6

The culture shock of what has been said in this case how the law affects the small villagers who had to seek life when nobody gave them a service to others is a human right . These settlements are typical small villages that traditionally came from Galicia facilitating the exploitation of resources in rural and in my opinion still maintain the rural Galician among the liveliest in Spain, despite the urbanization of the population and that it is trying to get another type of territorial models probably "more efficient" (which I do not share a parecerme less sustainable, more destabilizing and poorly adapted to our region by more than one point of view of large infrastructures as they are Plantex until the Dagor as electrical lines, systems supply or sanitation is much less efficient, but remember that these systems are not the only).

This causes not agree at first with the story that counts participant 1 that were taken out of service, had sought life, and now make him pay for something that no one is quite sure what it is and it seems like it pays for water or an agency reorganization that do not. serious error of Waters of Galicia already recognized Participant 4, the diffusion . It was important (and whether it is seen that was not done well enough) the inclusion of many important actors in water resource management as the rural service providers (yes, that promotes in Honduras Seals of potable water, also there in Galicia for a long time, those brought back roads, those residents paid apoquinando your pocket or selling pine of vicinal which neither the Board nor the City Council gave them neither a damn ) in the process of adoption of the Law (if it is above the veins that would be met and could lead to misinterpretation, often involved in political groups or lobbies of the type that had been). What happens is that there is not much real culture of transparency even in the English public administration (a government transparency law is already in a coffin ...). Very good ideas were rejected because people did not feel a participant or did not spread, enough for people to understand because they were really good ideas, and just enjoyed all .

That said, I think we agree that this new canon has little to do with the former rate of sanitation. do not share the talk of the rate is "pay for water" . I understand from what I saw in the law that it is recover costs of the water cycle , and you specify some of these concepts. It seems to me well, especially the concept that which raised the waters of Galicia Galicia invirta Water (as much as the value of possible sanctions, said to be crossing I'd like the concept of "polluters , clean Todito "has even more presence than the" polluters pays "). So the ability to "dissolve" the impact of the canon and not to use what you have to use less.

The problem of diffuse pollution also face with the canon? Because these settlements scattered greatly affect it (so it does not seem right to everything because you can not be hooked to a sewerage network and the most common is, hopefully, a septic design doubtful, since there has to pay anything, because the contamination of groundwater by inaxeitado treatment or cleaning of the tank or establis purine me is affecting me too ...). Here comes I understand to take into account the whole water cycle and minimize the impact of human activities (with the principles of solidarity, responsibility and blablabla) and if you pay a small fee to bring something to that and be more aware of some things, because to me it seems to me well (but if the thing does not stop at simple collection, and makes teaching and environmental education and sustainability). In this case

not think even those who say that privatizing the water with the law are right, even if privatization which is justified in the story that counts Participant 1 (the "his only water and his "that was mentioned, it is" our water is ours ", which is not the same, and in fact there are more people in the FHS who heard this same speech.) The privatization of (the concept of private enterprise and profit with a good or service to the basic human development) guess is we agree with all that we are more or less the wave of FHT that is not acceptable in the case of basic services (and I guess in case he's not a Participant or Waters of Galicia is a case privatization because it does not include these items). Waters of Galicia is not a company, and not for profit. Another issue is that we can make a concession to companies, but the last word has this public entity. This is the state Veles and control (with maximum tariffs, inter-territorial solidarity measures, etc.).. And if the state through its institutions they had the game business, because we all know that there are many vested interests, then enroll must be CITIZENSHIP. But much less think this bill seek privatization.
A "cultural confrontation" here think it comes more from the model of "public" or management by government and "community management model" (something like when he discusses the communists and anarchists, to understand each , jejejeje, the State v. Community Autoxestionaria ). The bad thing is when the state management is arbitrary and not caring, or when results are not obtained or is allowed the real participation of the population. The bad community management is that in many cases (which may be the water) do not have a comprehensive view and there may be problems of sustainability of the resource (remember a "story" about certain people where they arrived about engines to take advantage of the low water river during the dry season and as for that the inhabitants of these people was a breakthrough because they could irrigate, became a problem for people downstream ...). But two approaches are complementary and need (those who understand it call it "rings", is the ring of the family unit, the community, institutional location, the Independent, which must be well coordinated and have transparency, and there is one thing he said Nobel laureate E. Ostrom is that something like that to deal with complex resources are needed complex structures, and water resources with the full cycle will agree that it is complicated to manage.

worries me a little theme aquaculture (art 60), to which promotes not having the Board of Environmental Certification for them to pay less tax, the difference of what is done with the sports facilities (and also I seem to pay very little about the impact they have on their activities, beyond what I paid rate of stroke do not think that I paid for nothing because they do not shed public sewer, but I think so do not you go back to Portugal ... ;-DDD). I say this because the changes in the laws of the land since I am aware came to give more flexibility and facilities to an industry that is strategic to Galicia especially in the governments of the PP (but I think it does not adequately monitor or control parameters quality of water that pours).

not see a lot of awareness on the issue best practices in water use between the functions and powers of Waters of Galicia , should not also have much to say something or to propose and campaign for this or is the Environment? also just saw the very definite social Cauca to participate in the processes or organisms (there are rules of law to develop it for sure ...).

Something fundamental is that 're already fed up with laws that say one thing and then does another ... but that comes in another debate and at least I advocate the benefit of the doubt (and on the other hand is also responsibility of citizens to report and make an impact when something is not going well, or if you see that the law is poorly designed in some way that manifests itself when he is complying, it is to seek "continuous improvement" without give blank checks to the politicians, for a system to ensure minimum access to quality basic services and solidarity, and if there are good opportunities for participation provided, is built).

------------------------------------------------ -

new intervention (updated 2/16/2011)

------------------------------ Participant 4 -----------

Hello!

love you send the editorial in the Journal of Galicia today. I think it's the best reflection of what I read is the canon of Water, and what we are talking about whether it is a privatization or no water.

" Water is a public good and whose basic principle is the gratuity of the same since with him you meet vital needs for both the man and for all living beings. So the water itself, as well public domain, is priceless and therefore, Portuguese law does not create a tribute for it. different concept is the establishment of a canon that instead of charging the water covers the excessive consumption of it. That is, it is a tribute record the use or potential use or water from any source, for any purpose and for any application, because the crowd with the way that its use may produce. As you can see it is not put a price on water, but pay for the consumption that it takes place. Writes the consumer and not the water itself, which continues to be a free good .

http://www.xornal.com/opinions/2011/02/11/Opinion/lei-augas-non- serve-habera-modificala/2011021122055400226.html

For those who llevai charge in relation to communities of users already know my opinion and the reasons why the code should charge something for all users water, even if symbolic as that provided by law. But debate is poisoned and it is likely that ultimately clause that applies to the law itself provides that the adviser can not charge the state rate considered uneconomic (disp transit 14th). Not necessary to change the law, as stated in the editorial, but it is likely that this salvedade Law applies to more than me it seems reasonable to extend the exemptions to most communities of users. In the pits there is no discussion, then it will not be charged.

The position that should have FHS on the theme of water, you must first ask some questions, which in fact go far beyond what the law itself Waters of Galicia:

- If considers that the public adminsitracións spend enough on water, or have to be more ambitious?

- Must repercutirse users the full cost of services related to water, or whether it should subsidize through the general budgets of the Public Administrations?

- If it is passed on to users, as it affects? ¿Should be universal, or should there be exemptions?

- What is the desirable level and permissible under the private sector in water (of course in terms of services)?

a) in no event should attend.

b) all management should encomendárselle

c) intermediate model, with public ownership and private management (service contracts addressed by management: Aqualia, Aquagest, etc.)

You have to think about all this represents us as the receipt of water in our lives and our families, compared to other places (Spain, Europe and the world) and other services (cellular vs ¿expense receipt of the water?). To become an idea, the cost recovery is approximately 35%. The rest is subsidy, and much of it comes from the European Union.

----------------------------------------
Participant 6

I'm at it something radical because assume I want a balanced territory and distributed in such a way that you can minimize the cost of infrastructure supply and sanitation but not getting the whole world at large population centers, but a adequate control of activities and their impact on the territory (which should be something for everyone.) Speaking to the rough, beside my house is a river with water all year round, why must traerme the water pipes from 6 miles? I speak to minimize the impact of each and every one of human activities on the territory (and this is the only sustainable long-term natural resources, water included).

That said, some reflection.
- I do not understand the difference between paying for water or pay for their consumption. If not consumption, that I want? The fact that water is a human right and a basic service is precisely in that consumption is essential for life. If you pay by consuming than necessary for a dignified life (which is already studied and well defined), then the fee is not paid by the consumer , but by over-consumption (which may be due to natural wastage or because they use water in an economic activity of any kind, where we come considerations of political, the territorial model of development sought and, if such priority agricultural consumption on the industrial or the Internet on Hydro through canons higher or lower for different activities).
- If you would charge for the entire world this "tribute by over-consumption", figure it's only free if it does not exceed a minimum consumption under which should be free access to water (and as a basic service that should provide the different public institutions in accordance with its powers, must be covered by taxes in general, not just with the money you take out the amount by over-consumption or penalties, or money that comes from Europe, but that all other taxes we pay). If someone takes the well at a level above the minimum do not understand why no snake (aquifers are all and this person is esquilmando however much we could afford to drill 40 meters, is the same as in the area where we work in Honduras, where the landowners what they can punch at will, without giving accounts to anyone), and even brought the city. The key to whether or not to charge me for the canon should not be the modality of abastacemento (brought vicinal, municipal, private well or whatever), but what is consumed (but of course, this requires a control that does not if you are able to implement ...).

This leads me
issues Participant 4:

- ¿If you believe that the public adminsitracións spend enough on water, or have to be more ambitious? If it is true that maoiria investment depends on the EU, it seems that invest little (from what I said before the universality and gratuity of water to a minimum considered necessary for a decent life).

- ¿ should repercutirse users the full cost of services related to water, or whether it should subsidize through the general budgets of the Public Administrations? I think it is answered with the above. Until at least totally free, after a longer stretches.

- If that is passed on to users, as it affects? ¿Should be universal, or should there be exemptions? there should be exemptions in all cases where the minimum is not reached, and then by class, with special cases according to the economic activities concerned.

- What is the desirable level and permissible under the private sector in water (of course in terms of services)?
a) in no event should attend.
b) should all encomendárselle management
c) intermediate model, with public ownership and private management (service contracts addressed by management: Aqualia, Aquagest, etc.)

For me the ideal would be to achieve tendency to mix public management -community management. This is the format of "rings" on complex natural resource management, such as water resource, to convince me that the hypothesis resources to handle complex structures are required complex as previously mentioned. In addition, whether the basic services that are a human right , Does not seem appropriate that the management involved a private company (much as is theoretically controlled by the state or by users) that seeks to maximize resource posing as an excuse for their supposed greater efficiency, since it is not always so much less , basic services I defend the effectiveness of the efficiency ). It does not take away that one can not rely on private companies as an intermediate model of transition as they strengthen the capacities of public and community management, but always with a view to achieving the scenario of non-participation of private companies. Another model that I propose for this transition using private lot better than private companies traditional would be a company of social economy, without distributing capital to shareholders anonymous and with a goal of social development rather than profit maximization (but I repeat, always as part of the transition, because these entities of social economy are also private, and in my opinion when it comes to basic services must be citizens who have their most immediate control, minimizing as much as possible intermediaries).

------------------------------------------------ Participant 3


From what I read around the Galician environmentalism is mobilizing against the Water Act among other things, for example Verdegaia:
- criticism of the law of water and configuration of the platform against the Water Act

Moreover, there are many experienced people in the ESF on the subject you see this positive law.
As can organize a debate or something.

----------------------------------------------
Participant 6
Entonces animals debatillo to organize it?? true? true?

for granted, this release of the platform seems to me that there are contradictions and inaccuracies algunas as he theme of "private enterprise" cuando this is inferred from the law in no time (and in my opinion is privatize it tampoco element with he water his canon), Aunque a particular level yes I would like to know the implications of the single article I find where they mention this theme:

Article 9. Nature and ascription.
1. Waters of Galicia is an entity of public law that fits the law, the regulatory standard of development and private law.

Here (1) and here (2) You can see differences between public and private Derecho
----------------------- Participant 4 -----------------------------------------

not I can resist to participate. The distinction of public and private law, by definition the ones that are "outside" the very structure of the central government are all subject to public law and private law, to gain agility, both in hiring and personnel (labor, and employee). The problem is when that which is an advantage, using bad (then speaking of tents). But now there is a law that reorganizes all government entities and groups them together in only two forms, much more controlled than before the Board. And in the new waters of Galicia can not enter into private equity because it is not a company, there is no capital stock, (eg, in Sogamoso).

In any case, the washout of public and private entities is common in the water managers in the different autonomous communities. For example, the Catalan Water Agency. This is your status:
"The activity is submitted to the Agency on an overall external relations legal al Derecho Privado, with the exceptions contained therein revised text of legislation on the waters of Catalonia and the Constitution."

On their chance [...] joined it at the project status Waters of Galicia :

Article 4.3 of the draft Statute:

"Waters of Galicia is in the entity through which Board Galicia applies and guarantees the principles governing public management, which is indispensable "

Article 24.4 of the draft statute:
" It is expressly referred to the public activity of Waters of Galicia RELATED TO with water management, and, in particular:
a) The acts of planning and management of the Public Domain Hydraulic and Maritime-Terrestrial.
b) The acts dictated in the exercise of sanctioning.
c) The acts of management, inspection and collection of taxes from the Autonomous Community of Galicia on water and other public revenues.
d) The scheme challenges to administrative acts and silence.
e) The acts of the entity arising from relationships with other entities of the Junta of Galicia and with third parties involving the exercise of potestas public, and in general act of any charge or benefit that involve the exercise of these potestas. "

Article 30.2 (economic resources, including Canon Water)
"The resources indicated in the preceding paragraph adicanse exclusively for maintenance of the policies of the Xunta de Galicia related to public water management that takes place through the waters of Galicia

- -------------------------------------------------- -------- UPDATE 16/03/2011


Participant 1

Following the debate, I add an interview with Carmen Freire SLG and add the following reflection and personal experience:

I keep thinking that the "rate" is the first step towards privatization since it seems here in your comments and that since the country does not want to "pay" for water consumption, and is exactly the opposite. In most municipal water brought there and they deceived participant 6, pay to maintain quality and protect water sources (maintenance, cleaning, exams ...). For example in our village we paid an average of 100-150 € per year to maintain and protect water sources, and the part that does not include expenses that taking in infrastructure, in addition to the personal work of each "house" involved in supplying that part, but again have to pay.

That said, I am against centralism and uneven growth that leads to the creation of major infrastructure. It makes sense that we bring in our village and make a strong investment in pipes, tubes, ... to bring water from step or Compostela, where the neighbors were able to own asociarnos order to improve the supply of each of our homes, spending money, staff hours, ceding land ...

Also makes me grace to say that the law is to improve the management of resources ... when all adminsitracións, olympically pass the subject, and continue with the examples (personal, that those who are alive): the sources we use in our supply are on the side of a mountain that was exploited by the Swedes to extract gravel for making silicon in the years 60-70. One company wanted to dismantle discard pile, and fill it with the excavated material from landfills and lines of the bird and the motorway, and it had to break the natural waterways, destroying the springs and aquifers. For more than if you took pictures, drawings and make three resources in the Ministry of Environment, were allowed and not "imported" the source, comparing with the "benefit" of having a vertedeoiro of rubble and dirt cheap and around Santiago. Thankfully, Mr.. Villar Mir and Paco Gomez had both mine own which do their business and olvidaronse that existing in the village.

The same happened to the quarry which is inert in the neighboring hill and the village nearby. The partners thought take the hole made by the Swedes to take advantage and get more quartz. Again the Secretariat provided all the corresponding rights and the same way as before the government was not interested for the whole village was without water ... this was a minor problem compared with the "benefit" can you see the opening of another mine (clearly generated a great benefit to society as well .... but trims the corporation which was the company). In this case, the death of a partner of the quarry meant that the project was undertaken ... for now .... And I also

finca-standing participant in the June terms, I agree with those who consume more pay more ... so why-ENCE Pontevedra, Endesa-Bridges, Unión Fenosa-Meirama, Alcoa-San Ciprian ..... moitisisismas and larger companies do not pay more for water, because only with 0.40 € / m3 giving millions and millions m3 of water they consume each year would be enough to invest and make new insfraestuturas Galicia more efficient and respectful of the environment, less polluting and possibility of reuse of purified water for irrigation for example ... It does not matter because the Large companies are the rulers and they want more benefits ...

So I think the administration is concerned about the "right to water, with NO answer, but read in newspapers or media news related to water are nothing more than openings pre-election as the stage of Hart and Burela Friday afternoon, which was inaugurated by our Chairman of the board for the 3rd time, this time working ... finally. (Eih, which is not critical to this government party in particular but to all parties who govern, and rule governed political ... and obeying the orders of companies in particular)

Large infrastructures are adequate clearance Galicia, no response, with the dispersion of the Galician countryside only correct and successful to improve and manage water, aquifers, communities brought municipal water, communities of mountains .... in which the very people who enjoy this right to water have to keep it, xestionalo and protect him, because as humans are concerned only with what is ours, what hurts us ... the other does not matter.

See if someone says, because there are very critical and capable people in the FHS who can give more ideas and opinions ... that can be good solutions.
------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

Participant 6

What you pay in the communities for maintenance and protection of water sources that mention participant 1 is not a duty of solidarity to improve the other areas that are not so easy to have adequate access to water, so I guess I'm not mistaken about what he said since I speak (maybe I explained evil) that do not pay a solidarity tax (which for me should be the basis of taxes and so I believe them). And if it is a duty of solidarity do not see privatization, on the one hand (as I said, it seems more a "struggle" between the public and community-self-managed).
what they paid in their community, a participant, is not something that goes beyond the need for self-management. Sure, until the Dagor deixáronvos autoxestionarvos alone and you have had to, because now they want with the new law that everyone is supportive and will be charged a fee even if you had to seek life alone? This could be the question, but the fact that before he had done wrong does not mean you can do well and what I potted least in the law (besides the errors discussed in the dissemination especially serious when he went into the election period) is more space for the participation of communities and other social agents, for example, in monitoring the management of the value of money that really is a tax of solidarity, and there is the temptation to use eg these macro-structures that in some areas of greatest concentration are necessary but which sometimes are inaxeitadas and serve as a simple "caladeiro votes" for the party touch it or subcontract to a company that forró with this service (and yes it could be a covert privatization), leaving the more remote areas neglected as was done until the Dagor. That is, for me the key is not that the fee should be privatized, but that monitoring of the management of something that seems a good idea is not appropriate and not leave space for participation in this, with which one can allow a minority (only people in the cities, or just this or that company or political party).

share with participants a rejection of the traditional "mirarcaraoutrolado" of legislative proposals in time for businesses to pay a fair price for the natural resources they consume, and they needed to spend more for "not contaminated and is consumed according to the capacity for regeneration ecosystem ", not the" polluters pay ". In this topic I also think it would be necessary to take special care, since there are strategic areas that should be a priority (which in my opinion was not done with the participation as appropriate for example the already mentioned aquaculture, which strangely he began to have great prominence in recent years), for example, hydroelectric production in Galicia is so important to the model I would like to implement that would welcome a rate minimized as it already has, as in the case of small populations that give cohesion to the territorial model Galician, but in the case of ENCE with thermal ...

------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------
CONTINUE ...