instruction:
Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.
question:
Two rural water systems in Sandoval County say the crop may be depleting local water supplies, and they say they have been left powerless to stop it, the Albuquerque Journal reports. The Pena Blanca Water and Sanitation District and Sile Mutual Domestic Water and Sewer Association sent a letter last month to state agencies and legislators describing their concerns over their disappearing water resources. The water system representatives say New Mexico's patchwork of medical marijuana regulations has not kept up with the increased strain on rural water supplies. "The (cannabis) companies may think that the water rights were already taken care of when they purchased the property," Pena Blanca district president John Gurule said. "We see the potential for these farms to bring economic growth to a rural community, so how do we support that growth while bringing water to our residents?" The groups are asking that all producers applying for a medical cannabis license prove a valid water right for commercial agriculture with the Office of the State Engineer. The Sile water system serves 154 people west of the Rio Grande between Cochiti and Kewa pueblos. The Pena Blanca system is responsible for delivering water to 448 people on the east side of the river between the same pueblos. An average household in the Pena Blanca system uses about 3,000 gallons of water a month, president John Gurule said. A cannabis farm with greenhouses in Pena Blanca that began operating last year is logging 20,000 gallons of domestic water use per month. The board members say the increases could point to treated drinking water being used for cannabis irrigation. New Mexico legalized medical cannabis in 2007. Domestic well water may not be used for agriculture in the state. Farmers must irrigate cannabis or other crops with another water source by acquiring a valid water right. John Romero, director of the Water Rights Division and the Resources Allocation Program for the Office of the State Engineer, said the affected mutual domestic water systems have a history of poor infrastructure, limited revenue, too many connections, and water overuse. The increase in cannabis production and alleged improper water use may be exacerbating those issues. "Cannabis hasn't helped this situation. It is illegal to use domestic well water for agriculture, but it is up to (Sile and Pena Blanca) to enforce that," Romero said. "We can't police every mutual domestic water association, but we will work with them and help to see if these properties have a valid water right for what they want to do."
answer:
Marijuana farms may be straining New Mexico water supplies.

question:
The heath secretary, Dr. Rachel Levine, announced Thursday she'll be adding them as of July 20. Levine says her decision was based on the recommendation of the state's Medical Marijuana Advisory Board and her own review of medical research literature. She says medical marijuana shouldn't be the first treatments for those conditions, but physicians can recommend it to be used together with traditional therapeutic approaches. The list already includes cancer, epilepsy, intractable seizures, post-traumatic stress disorder, terminal illness and other conditions. Nearly 111,000 Pennsylvanians have been certified for participation in the state's medical marijuana program .
answer:
State adds anxiety to qualifying conditions for medical pot.

question:
"Violence - or the potential for violence - is everywhere. It's the reason we have police and laws, jails and federal programs to study the causes and suggest responses. It's the reason, too, that Congress passes laws to address crime in all its facets. One of those is the Violence Against Women Act, which is intended to protect women from domestic abuse and violence. It provides federal dollars for an array of programs to achieve that goal. Oregon, for example, collected $9.4 million in 2012 for programs to protect women from violence. The law was first passed in 1994 and easily renewed in 2000 and 2005 by lopsided majorities. But it was allowed to lapse in 2011 after a partisan Congress couldn't reach agreement. (Partisanship in Congress? Shocking, we know.) Now it's back and in an effort to build momentum and the votes to renew it, supporters like Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., have been talking about the law's benefits. Here's what Merkley said Feb. 7 during a conference call with reporters: ""Since 1994 when VAWA was first passed, incidents of domestic violence have dropped more than 50 percent."" That seems to be a pretty strong selling point and as the bill moves toward a final vote in the Senate it's something that will be repeated and emphasized during debate. But is it ? First, we need a quick fly-by of the law and what it provides. The law, known by the shorthand VAWA, first passed in 1994 and was written by then senator and now Vice President Joe Biden. It acknowledged domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes, and provided federal resources to encourage community-coordinated responses to combating violence. When it was re-authorized in 2000 lawmakers expanded the definition of crime to include dating violence and stalking. Its subsequent reauthorization in 2005 created new programs to meet the emerging needs of communities working to prevent violence. Until it expired in 2011, the law was expansive and reached into every corner of the country. (Some funding continued into 2012.) Among other things, it provided grants to states and local law enforcement to beef up enforcement as well as money to prosecutors to focus on gender-based crime. Included in the array of programs and assistance, VAWA provided money for direct services for victims of sexual assault and for things like transitional housing and legal assistance. According to Merkley, all those programs made a difference. Which brings us back to his claim that since it was first enacted domestic violence has fallen 50 percent. Another fortunate development when it comes to crime is that governments at all levels but especially the federal government go to great lengths to quantify, parse and sub-total crime. Data abounds. It's also unambiguous. ""From 1994 to 2010, the overall rate of intimate partner violence in the United States declined by 64 percent, from 9.8 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older to 3.6 per 1,000,"" the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in November 2012. The report notes that over that same period ""4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female."" A report by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, an interest group focusing on the issue, comes to a similar conclusion. ""The rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 63 percent and the number of women killed by an intimate partner has decreased 24 percent,"" between 1994 and 2010. The group connects the numbers directly to the VAWA, saying the law ""has changed the way federal, tribal, state and local entities respond to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking."" Surveys by the American Bar Association and other independent groups had similar findings. That's a lot of scholarship and paper, sponsored, collected and analyzed by federal and independent researchers. And while the results don't perfectly align, all agree that the incidence of domestic abuse has dropped by more than 50 percent since the Violence Against Women Act was passed in 1994. You can quibble about the minor differences but not the accuracy of Merkley's statement."
answer:
Jeff Merkley Says, "Since 1994 when VAWA was first passed, incidents of domestic violence have dropped more than 50 percent.