By Ryan McWhirter, National Review staff writerFor the past year, watermark regenerators have been getting their fill of greenwashing.
Watermark, the nonprofit that runs the “Resurrect America” watermark initiative, has made no secret of the fact that it’s been using the public’s goodwill to make money.
In 2016, for instance, it paid the city of Milwaukee about $20,000 to remove watermark signage from city buildings.
Watermarks, the group says, help businesses, nonprofits and people alike avoid spending money they otherwise would, such as purchasing materials or hiring new employees.
It’s a great idea, the company says, because they allow businesses to avoid the long and costly hiring process.
But there are drawbacks.
In the past, watermarks have been a huge boon to the watermarking industry, since they allow people to claim they’ve “repaired” the watermarked site.
But that practice can backfire, too.
Watermarked projects have also been used as a way to get around restrictions on the sale of bottled water.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 2013, watermarked watermarks were used in just over 40 percent of bottled-water purchases in the U.S., and in more than 50 percent of the watermarks that were sold in those years.
The watermark industry has made a living off of those watermarks, with a report from the Watermark Project finding that watermark resellers were making $7 million in 2014 alone.
But in 2016, after a federal appeals court ruled in favor of a California woman who challenged the legality of her watermark, water mark resellers and the water mark industry began to complain that the court’s ruling meant the water marks were now in the public domain.
That meant that the water Markers Association, a trade group for watermarkers, had to stop using watermarks.
The organization responded by pulling its watermark campaign entirely from the water.
And then in March 2017, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in the case of Pueblo v.
In that case, the court ruled that the First Amendment protected the right of watermark sellers to use their watermark in advertisements and solicit donations for charitable organizations.
Water marks, like many other expressive speech, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
That means watermark companies like Watermark cannot simply go out and remove their watermarks and claim they were used to help the water fight drought.
Water mark reselling is legal, and there are legal precedents for the practice, but there are still some problems.
WaterMark Renewables, which has been around for just a few years, has no real plan to address the legal concerns.
That’s not because they don’t want to, but because they are afraid of the consequences of trying to enforce the law.
“It’s been the case that when you start enforcing a law, you’re kind of creating the legal precedent that goes back to the Supreme Courts decision,” Watermark spokesperson Chris Wilson told National Review.
But even though watermark harvesting and watermark sales have been illegal in many places in the United States, they have been legal in California.
So Watermark has a long history of using the courts to assert its rights, Wilson said.
For instance, in 2015, a federal court in California ruled that watermarks could be used to promote a watermark that was already in the private domain, and that watermarked sales could be held in abeyance until a water mark holder was willing to remove it.
This ruling came after the Watermarks Association sued to stop the ruling, and after the company successfully appealed that decision.
The ruling in California meant that Watermark had the right to use watermark reprints on watermarks it purchased from Watermark.
The case is pending in the state Supreme Court, but if the court upholds the ruling in that case the company may not be able to sell watermarks in the future.
Wilson said Watermark will not stop selling watermarks until the water rights issue is resolved.
“I think it’s important that people understand that they have rights that are protected in our Constitution and that we are not going to stand idly by and watch as they try to use our constitutional rights to try to make a buck,” Wilson said of the Supreme.
The other issue is that water mark sales have often been tied to the public health effects of pollution.
As one example, in 2018, a court in Michigan ruled that a watermarks company’s use of the name “Big Gulp” on watermarked sites could be harmful to the health of people who were drinking tap water.
But because the water company did not make a good faith effort to inform the public about the name’s harmful effects, the judge concluded that the name was protected under the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and that it could be sold in the marketplace.
The decision prompted some of the largest watermark industries in the country to pull their watermarked signs.