The phrase "asserted water" is not correct and does not convey a clear meaning in written English.
It may be intended to describe a claim or statement regarding water, but the phrasing is awkward and unclear.
Example: "The scientist asserted water was essential for life, but the audience was skeptical of his claims."
Alternatives: "claimed water" or "stated that water".
After all, when Oscar asserts "water is scrumptious," this is directed at water, yet Twin Oscar's parallel assertion is in reference to XYZ, a.k.a.a
The researchers assert that water and water data are extremely under undervalued.
For that is tantamount to the suggestion that (actual) Berzelius (the discoverer of the correct chemical formula for water) was not entitled to assert that water is H2O until he had ruled out the possibility of some substance other than H2O sharing water's manifest qualities.
If, as Gleick asserts, tap water is often as tasty and clean, and maybe tastier and cleaner, than bottled water, then it is not the failure of the 19th- and 20th-century systems that deliver water to the public that is the problem (the Second Water Age), it is the disjunction between fact and perception that is distorting water policy.
The Qur'an asserts that water is the sole basis for the emergence of life: We have made every living thing out of water.
"The [employment] opportunities are endless it's almost a frontier mentality," asserts Dara Entekhabi, water foundations professor in civil/environmental engineering at MIT, and member of the National Academy of Sciences committee on Opportunities in Hydrologic Sciences.
An initial draft was submitted to Everglades National Park management who asserted not enough water would be released to the park quickly enough that the priority went to delivering water to urban areas.
"The District and its residents were unknowingly forced to serve as a 'canary in the coal mine' for lead in drinking water," asserted Representative Henry Waxman (D California) in a statement presented at a congressional hearing in May 2004.
The regulation the court invalidated was known as the migratory bird rule, because it asserted jurisdiction over waters that were or could be used by birds that cross state lines or that are protected by international treaties.
The precise number was quickly disputed, with water agencies like Santa Ana asserting that their water use had not increased anywhere near the state's numbers.
