Water tariff

Last updated

A water tariff (often called water rate in the United States and Canada) is a price assigned to water supplied by a public utility through a piped network to its customers. The term is also often applied to wastewater tariffs. Water and wastewater tariffs are not charged for water itself, but to recover the costs of water treatment, water storage, transporting it to customers, collecting and treating wastewater, as well as billing and collection. Prices paid for water itself are different from water tariffs. They exist in a few countries and are called water abstraction charges or fees. Abstraction charges are not covered in this article, but in the article on water pricing). Water tariffs vary widely in their structure and level between countries, cities and sometimes between user categories (residential, commercial, industrial or public buildings). The mechanisms to adjust tariffs also vary widely.

Contents

Most water utilities in the world are publicly owned, but some are privately owned or managed (see water privatization). Utilities are network industries and natural monopolies. Economic theory predicts that unregulated private utilities set the price of their product at a level that allows to extract a monopoly profit. However, in reality tariffs charged by utilities are regulated. They can be set below costs, at the level of cost recovery without a return on capital, or at the level of cost recovery including a predetermined rate of return on capital. In many developing countries tariffs are set below the level of cost recovery, even without considering a rate of return on capital [ref]. This often leads to a lack of maintenance and requires significant subsidies for both investment and operation. In developed countries water and, to a lesser degree, wastewater tariffs, are typically set close to or at the level of cost recovery, sometimes including an allowance for profit[ref].

Criteria for tariff setting

Water tariffs are set based on a number of formal criteria defined by law, as well as informal criteria. [1] Formal criteria typically include:

Social and political considerations often are also important in setting tariffs. Tariff structure and levels are influenced in some cases by the desire to avoid an overly high burden for poor users. Political considerations in water pricing often lead to a delay in the approval of tariff increases in the run-up to elections. [2] Another criterion for tariff setting is that water tariffs should be easy to understand for consumers. This is not always the case for the more complex types of tariffs, such as increasing-block tariffs and tariffs that differentiate between different categories of users.

Tariff structures

There are numerous different tariff structures. Their prevalence differs between countries, as shown by international tariff surveys.

Types of tariff structures

Water and wastewater tariffs include at least one of the following components:

Many utilities apply two-part tariffs where a volumetric tariff is combined with a fixed charge. The latter may include a minimum consumption or not. The level of the fixed charge often depends on the diameter of the connection.

Volumetric tariffs can

The tariff for a first block on an IBT is usually set at a very low tariff with the objective to protect poor households that are assumed to consume less water than non-poor households. The size of the first block can vary from 5 cubic meters to 50 cubic meters per household and month. In South Africa, the first block of consumption of 6 cubic meters per household and month is even provided for free (free basic water). Average monthly water consumption varies depending on household size and consumption habits between about 4 cubic meters for a single-person household in temperate climate (e.g. in Germany) with no outdoor water use and about 50 cubic meters for a four-person household in warm climate (e.g. in the Southern United States) including outdoor water use.

However, there is not always a positive correlation between the level of household income and water consumption. [3]

Wastewater tariffs typically follow the same structure as water tariffs. They are typically measured based on the volume of water supplied, sometimes after subtracting an allowance made for estimated or actual outdoor use. In the case of industries, wastewater tariffs are sometimes differentiated based on the pollutant load of the wastewater. In some cases wastewater tariffs are a fixed percentage of water tariffs, but usually they are set separately. In addition to regular bills, many utilities levy a one-time connection fee both for water and for sewer connections.

International tariff surveys

The OECD conducted two surveys of residential water tariffs in 1999 and in 2007-08, using a reference consumption of 15 cubic meters per household and month. The 2007-08 survey covered more than 150 cities in all 30 OECD member countries. The survey does not claim to be representative. The OECD survey was complemented by a survey of the industry information service Global Water Intelligence (GWI) conducted in 2007-2008 in parallel with the second OECD survey. The 2008 GWI survey covered 184 utilities in OECD countries and 94 utilities in non-OECD countries. [4] GWI has repeated its survey every year from 2009 to 2012, increasing the number of utilities surveyed to 310 in 2012. The data from the OECD/GWI surveys are widely quoted and, unlike the results of other global tariff surveys, have been indirectly made available to the public.

The database of the International Benchmarking Network (IB-Net) for Water and Sanitation Utilities includes tariff data from more than 190 countries and territories tariffs.ib-net.org. [5] [6] Another tariff survey has been conducted by the International Water Association . [7] In addition, surveys of tariffs for commercial and industrial customers in selected OECD countries have also regularly been conducted by the consulting firm NUS. [8]

Prevalence of tariff structure types

Linear volumetric tariffs are the most common form of water tariffs in OECD countries, being used by 90 out of 184 utilities surveyed by Global Water Intelligence in 2007 and 2008, either with or without a fixed charge element. [4] Some eastern European countries (Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic) use pricing systems based solely on volumetric pricing, with no fixed charge element at all. [9] Increasing-block tariff systems are used by 87 of the 184 utilities in OECD countries surveyed, such as e.g. in Spain. Since the late 1980s there has been a trend in OECD countries away from decreasing-block tariffs, which are apparently only still found in some cities of the United States. Where fixed charges exist as part of two-part tariffs, there is a shift toward the reduction or even abolition of large minimum free allowances in OECD countries. For example, Australia and South Korea have both moved in this direction during the 1990s. [9] Flat rates are still reported in Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. [4]

Concerning developing countries and transition economies, in the non-representative GWI sample of 94 utilities in 54 countries, 59 used linear volumetric tariffs and 31 used increasing-block tariffs. [4] However, utilities from Sub-Saharan Africa where increasing-block tariffs are very common are under-represented in the GWI sample with only 6 utilities. On the other hand, utilities from transition economies where linear volumetric tariffs are common are over-represented with 28 utilities. The survey thus probably underestimates the prevalence of increasing-block tariffs in non-OECD countries.

Tariff levels

There are different valid methods to compare water tariff levels. According to one method, the highest water and wastewater tariff in the world is found in Bermudas, equivalent to US$7.45 per m3 in 2017 (consumption of 15 m3 per month). The lowest water tariffs in the world are found in Turkmenistan and Cook Islands, where residential water is provided for free, followed by Uzbekistan with a water tariff equivalent to US$0.01 per m3 and no wastewater tariff [10]

There are two basic ways to calculate water and wastewater tariff levels for the purpose of comparing tariff levels between cities: One way is to calculate an average tariff for the utility. This is done by dividing total tariff revenues by the total consumption billed across all usage categories and all levels of consumption. Another way is to determine a typical level of consumption and calculate the residential tariff that corresponds to this consumption. Depending on which of these two methods is used the resulting tariff can vary significantly for the same utility.

The comparison of water and wastewater tariffs across countries is further complicated by the choice of the appropriate exchange rate (nominal exchange rates for a given year or over the average of several years, or purchasing power parity exchange rates).

Furthermore, providing a global overview of water tariff levels is complicated by the large number of service providers (utilities). In urban areas in the United States alone, there are more than 4,000 water utilities. In Germany there are more than 1,200 utilities. Few countries in the world maintain national databases of water and wastewater tariffs charged by utilities. There are few countries that maintain national tariff databases, usually those with a specialized regulatory agency for the water sector such as England (OFWAT), Chile (SISS), Colombia (CRA) or Peru (SUNASS).

Tariff levels

Among the 310 cities in the GWI 2012 tariff survey the average combined water and wastewater tariff was US$1.98/m3 for the 15 m3/month "benchmark" customer used by the survey. Utilities in four of the surveyed cities provide residential water and wastewater services for free: Dublin and Cork (see Ireland), as well as Belfast and Ashgabat in Turkmenistan. The lowest residential water and wastewater tariffs were found in Saudi Arabia (equivalent to US$0.03/m3) and in Havana, Cuba as well as Damascus, Syria (equivalent to US$0.04/m3). [11] Rates in the United States in Clovis, CA are $0.42/m3. [12] and $1.60/m3 in Seattle [13] The highest water and wastewater tariffs were found in Aarhus, Denmark (US$9.21/m3), Essen, Germany (US$7.35/m3; not included in the OECD survey) Copenhagen, Denmark (US$7.09), and four Australian cities (Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney) where the tariff for the benchmark user ranged from US$6.38/m3 - US$6.47/m3. [10]

Concerning wastewater tariffs, in some countries such as [Nigeria] there is no wastewater tariff at all. In other countries - such as Mexico, Turkey, Belgium, Portugal and Korea - wastewater tariffs are low relative to water tariffs. Finally, in many OECD countries - such as in Australia, Germany, Italy, the UK and the US - wastewater tariffs are now higher than water tariffs, reflecting increasing cost recovery rates and an increase in the prevalence of wastewater treatment. [14]

Wastewater tariffs from 126 countries and territories can be found here https://tariffs.ib-net.org/sites/IBNET/VisualSearch/IndexCurrentUSD?Weight=0&ServiceId=3&Yearid=0

Many utilities charge higher tariffs for commercial and industrial customers than for residential users, in an effort to cross-subsidy residential customers.

Tariff adjustment processes

The process of adjusting water tariffs differs greatly from one location to another. In many large countries (China, France, Germany, India, Mexico, South Africa and the United States) the process of price adjustment takes place at the municipal level. Rules for price adjustments vary greatly. In the case of public service provision, tariffs are typically adjusted through a decision by the municipal council after a request by the municipal utility. Some countries, such as Germany, stipulate by law that all the financial costs of service provision must be recovered through tariff revenues. Other countries define cost recovery as a long-term objective, such as in Mexico. In the case of private service providers tariff adjustment rules are often laid out in concession or lease contracts, often providing for indexation to inflation.

In some developing countries, water tariffs are set at the national level. Tariff increases are often considered a politically sensitive issue and have to be decided by the Cabinet of Ministers or a National Pricing Commission. This is the case in many countries of the Middle East and North Africa (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia), as well as in many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. In many countries, there are no objective criteria for tariff adjustments. Adjustments tend to be infrequent and often lag behind inflation so that cost recovery remains elusive.

Some countries have created regulatory agencies at the national level that review requests for tariff adjustments submitted by service providers. The earliest and best-known example is the regulatory agency OFWAT, which was established for England and Wales in 1989. Some developing countries followed suit. They include Chile (1990), Colombia (1994), Honduras (2004), Kenya, Mozambique (1998), Peru (1994), Portugal (1997), and Zambia (2000). The review process is typically based on transparent and objective criteria set by law, in an attempt to move decision-making at least partly out of the realm of politics. The track record of these agencies has been diverse, usually mirroring the political and administrative traditions of each country.

Changes in water use in response to tariff increases

The responsiveness of demand to a change in price is measured by the price elasticity of demand, which is defined as the percentage change in demand divided by the percentage change in price. The price elasticity of drinking water demand by urban households is typically low. In European countries it ranges between -0.1 and -0.25, i.e. the demand for water decreases by 0.1% to 0.25% for every 1% increase in tariffs. In Australia and the United States price elasticity is somewhat higher in the range of -0.1 and -0.4. [15]

Affordability and social protection measures

In about half the OECD member countries, affordability of water charges for low-income households is or could become a significant issue, according to the OECD. In developing countries, the poor are often not connected to the network and often pay a higher share of their meager incomes for lower quantities of water supplied by water vendors through trucks. On the other hand, utility bills paid by those fortunate enough to be connected to the network are very low in some developing countries. Different countries have introduced a variety of approaches to protect the poor from high water tariffs.

Affordability

The affordability of water charges can be measured by macro- and micro-affordability. [16] Macro-affordability" indicators relate national average household water and wastewater bills to average net disposable household income. In OECD countries it varies from 0.2% (Italy and Mexico) to 1.4% (Slovak Republic, Poland and Hungary). In the largest OECD countries the share is 0.3% in the United States and Japan, 0.7% in France and 0.9% in Germany. However, micro-affordability is quite different. It measures the share of bills in the income of the poor, defined in an OECD affordability study as the lowest decile of the population. This share varies between 1.1% (Sweden, Netherlands, Italy) and 5.3% in the Slovak Republic, 9.0% in Poland and 10.3% in Turkey. [4] The OECD concludes that in half its member countries (15 out of 30), affordability of water charges for low-income households "is either a significant issue now or might become one in the future, if appropriate policy measures are not put in place." [16] In developing countries the situation is more serious, not only because of lower incomes, but also because the poor are often not connected to the network. They usually pay a higher share of their meager incomes for lower quantities of water at often lower quality supplied by water vendors through trucks. On the other hand, utility bills paid by those fortunate enough to be connected to the network are often relatively low, especially in South Asia. Because of this situation the OECD does not recommend to use uniform "thresholds" for the affordability of water and wastewater bills. These "thresholds" are often quoted in the range of 3-5% of household income. [4]

Social protection measures

Social protection measures to ensure that piped water remains affordable can be broadly classified into income support measures and tariff-related measures. Income support measures address the individual customer’s ability to pay from the income side (through income assistance, water services vouchers, tariff rebates and discounts, bill re-phasing and easier payment plans, arrears forgiveness). [16] An example of income assistance to poor users is the subsidy system applied in Chile. Tariff-related measures keep the size of water bills low for certain groups (e.g. refinement of increasing-block tariffs, tariff choice, tariff capping). [16] Examples of increasing block tariffs with a price of zero in the first block are found in Flanders and South Africa. Another measure is the cross-subsidization using different tariffs for different neighborhoods, as practiced in Colombia. A similar approach has been used at the national level in Portugal. The Portuguese economic water regulator carried out an affordability study that found out that 10.5% of the population paid more than 3% of their income for water and wastewater services. As a result, the regulator showed flexibility concerning tariff increases and tariff solutions in municipalities where affordability was a particular issue. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply</span> Provision of water by public utilities, commercial organisations or others

Water supply is the provision of water by public utilities, commercial organisations, community endeavors or by individuals, usually via a system of pumps and pipes. Public water supply systems are crucial to properly functioning societies. These systems are what supply drinking water to populations around the globe. Aspects of service quality include continuity of supply, water quality and water pressure. The institutional responsibility for water supply is arranged differently in different countries and regions. It usually includes issues surrounding policy and regulation, service provision and standardization.

Guyana, meaning "land of many waters", is rich in water resources. Most of the population is concentrated in the coastal plain, much of which is below sea level and is protected by a series of sea walls. A series of shallow reservoirs inland of the coastal plain, called "water conservancies", store surface water primarily for irrigation needs. Key issues in the water and sanitation sector in Guyana are poor service quality, a low level of cost recovery and low levels of access.

Access to drinking water and sanitation in El Salvador has been increased significantly. A 2015 conducted study by the University of North Carolina called El Salvador the country that has achieved the greatest progress in the world in terms of increased access to water supply and sanitation and the reduction of inequity in access between urban and rural areas. However, water resources are heavily polluted and the great majority of wastewater is discharged without any treatment into the environment. Institutionally a single public institution is both de facto in charge of setting sector policy and of being the main service provider. Attempts at reforming and modernizing the sector through new laws have not borne fruit over the past 20 years.

In 2020, 97.7% of Indians had access to the basic water and sanitation facilities. India faces challenges ranging from sourcing water for its megacities to its distribution network which is intermittent in rural areas with continuous distribution networks just beginning to emerge. Non-revenue water is a challenge.

Water supply and sanitation in China is undergoing a massive transition while facing numerous challenges such as rapid urbanization, increasing economic inequality, and the supply of water to rural areas. Water scarcity and pollution also impact access to water.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply and sanitation in Saudi Arabia</span>

Water supply and sanitation in Saudi Arabia is characterized by challenges and achievements. One of the main challenges is water scarcity. In order to overcome water scarcity, substantial investments have been undertaken in seawater desalination, water distribution, sewerage and wastewater treatment. Today about 50% of drinking water comes from desalination, 40% from the mining of non-renewable groundwater and only 10% from surface water in the mountainous southwest of the country. The capital Riyadh, located in the heart of the country, is supplied with desalinated water pumped from the Persian Gulf over a distance of 467 km. Water is provided almost for free to residential users. Despite improvements, service quality remains poor, for example in terms of continuity of supply. Another challenge is weak institutional capacity and governance, reflecting general characteristics of the public sector in Saudi Arabia. Among the achievements is a significant increases in desalination, and in access to water, the expansion of wastewater treatment, as well as the use of treated effluent for the irrigation of urban green spaces, and for agriculture.

Water supply and sanitation in Spain is characterized by universal access and good service quality, while tariffs are among the lowest in the EU. Almost half of the population is served by private or mixed private-public water companies, which operate under concession contracts with municipalities. The largest of the private water companies, with a market share of about 50% of the private concessions, is Aguas de Barcelona (Agbar). However, the large cities are all served by public companies except Barcelona and Valencia. The largest public company is Canal de Isabel II, which serves the metropolitan area of Madrid.

Water supply and sanitation in Yemen is characterized by many challenges as well as some achievements. A key challenge is severe water scarcity, especially in the Highlands, prompting The Times of London to write "Yemen could become the first nation to run out of water". A second key challenge is a high level of poverty, making it very difficult to recover the costs of service provision. Access to water supply sanitation in Yemen is as low or even lower than that in many sub-Saharan African countries. Yemen is both the poorest country and the most water-scarce country in the Arab world. Third, the capacity of sector institutions to plan, build, operate and maintain infrastructure remains limited. Last but not least the security situation makes it even more difficult to improve or even maintain existing levels of service.

Water privatization in Metro Manila began when the then President of the Philippines, Fidel Ramos, instructed the government in 1994 to solve what he called the water crisis in Manila by engaging with the private sector. In 1997, two concession contracts for the Eastern and Western halves of Metro Manila were awarded after an open competition. The concessions represent the largest population served by private operators in the developing world. Both winning companies, Maynilad Water Services in West Manila and especially Manila Water in East Manila, submitted bids with extremely low water tariffs. The tariffs proved to be too low to finance the investments needed to improve performance, especially after the East Asian financial crisis and the devaluation of the Philippine Peso.

Public water supply and sanitation in Denmark is characterized by universal access and generally good service quality. Some important features of the sector in Denmark as compared to other developed countries are:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply and sanitation in Senegal</span>

Water supply and sanitation in Senegal is characterized by a relatively-high level of access compared to most of sub-Saharan Africa. A public–private partnership (PPP) has operated in Senegal since 1996, with Senegalaise des Eaux the private partner. SDE does not own the water system, but manages it on a 10-year lease from the Senegalese government. Between 1996 and 2014, water sales doubled to 131 million cubic meters per year; the number of household connections increased by 165 percent, to over 638,000. According to the World Bank, "The Senegal case is regarded as a model of public-private partnership in sub-Saharan Africa". A national sanitation company is in charge of sewerage, wastewater treatment and stormwater drainage, which is modeled on the national sanitation company of Tunisia and is unique in sub-Saharan Africa.

Drinking water supply and sanitation in Egypt directly impact the country's public health, industrial developments, and agriculture. Egypt's water and sanitation industry is characterized by both achievements and challenges. Among the achievements are an increase of piped water supply between 1998 and 2006 from 89% to 100% in urban areas and from 39% to 93% in rural areas despite rapid population growth; the elimination of open defecation in rural areas during the same period; and in general a relatively high level of investment in infrastructure. Access to an at least basic water source in Egypt is now practically universal with a rate of 98%. On the institutional side, the regulation and service provision have been separated to some extensions through the creation of a national Holding Company for Water and Wastewater in 2004, and of an economic regulator, the Egyptian Water Regulatory Agency (EWRA), in 2006. Despite these successes, many challenges remain. Only about one half of the population is connected to sanitary sewers. Because of this low sanitation coverage, about 50,000 children die each year because of diarrhea. Another challenge is low cost recovery due to water tariffs that are among the lowest in the world. This in turn requires government subsidies even for operating costs, a situation that has been aggravated by salary increases without tariff increases after the Arab Spring. Furthermore, poor operation of facilities, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, as well as limited government accountability and transparency, are also issues.

Water supply and sanitation in Belgium is provided by a large variety of organizations: Most of the 581 municipalities of Belgium have delegated the responsibility for water supply and sanitation to regional or inter-municipal utilities. There are more than 62 water supply utilities, including 2 regional, 30 inter-municipal and 30 municipal utilities. Another 100 mostly small municipalities provide services directly without having a legally of financially separate entity for water supply. Water is not scarce in Belgium and water supply is generally continuous and of good quality. However, wastewater treatment has long lagged behind and Brussels only achieved full treatment of its wastewater in 2007. In 2004 the European Court of Justice ruled condemning Belgium's failure to comply with the EU wastewater directive, and the ruling has not been fully complied with so far. Wallonia satisfies 55% of the national needs in drinking water while it counts only 37% of the population. Flanders and Brussels are dependent on drinking water from Wallonia, at a level of 40% and 98% respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply and sanitation in Morocco</span>

Water supply and sanitation in Morocco is provided by a wide array of utilities. They range from private companies in the largest city, Casablanca, the capital, Rabat, Tangier, and Tetouan, to public municipal utilities in 13 other cities, as well as a national electricity and water company (ONEE). The latter is in charge of bulk water supply to the aforementioned utilities, water distribution in about 500 small towns, as well as sewerage and wastewater treatment in 60 of these towns.

Water pricing is a term that covers various processes to assign a price to water. These processes differ greatly under different circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water supply and sanitation in Turkey</span>

Water supply and sanitation in Turkey is characterized by achievements and challenges. Over the past decades access to drinking water has become almost universal and access to adequate sanitation has also increased substantially. Autonomous utilities have been created in the 16 metropolitan cities of Turkey and cost recovery has been increased, thus providing the basis for the sustainability of service provision. Intermittent supply, which was common in many cities, has become less frequent. In 2004, 61% of the wastewater collected through sewers was being treated. In 2020 77% of water was used by agriculture, 10% by households and the rest by industry.

Water supply and sanitation in Japan is characterized by numerous achievements and some challenges. The country has achieved universal access to water supply and sanitation, has one of the lowest levels of water distribution losses in the world, regularly exceeds its own strict standards for the quality of drinking water and treated waste water, uses an effective national system of performance benchmarking for water and sanitation utilities, makes extensive use of both advanced and appropriate technologies such as the jōkasō on-site sanitation system, and has pioneered the payment for ecosystem services before the term was even coined internationally. Some of the challenges are a decreasing population, declining investment, fiscal constraints, ageing facilities, an ageing workforce, a fragmentation of service provision among thousands of municipal utilities, and the vulnerability of parts of the country to droughts that are expected to become more frequent due to climate change.

Water supply and sanitation in Lebanon is characterized by a number of achievements and challenges. The achievements include the reconstruction of infrastructure after the 1975–90 Civil War and the 2006 war with Israel, as well as the reform of the water and sanitation sector through a water law passed in 2000. The law created four Regional Water Establishments to consolidate numerous smaller utilities.

Water supply and sanitation in Italy is characterized by mostly good services at prices that are lower than in other European countries with similar income levels. For example, the average monthly residential water and sewer bill in Italy is 20 Euro compared to 31 Euro in France. According to the OECD, water in Italy has been underpriced for a long time. With about 240 liter per day, per capita water use for residential uses in Italy is higher than in Spain or in France, where it is about 160 liter per day. Water resources in Italy are distributed unevenly, with more abundant resources in the North and scarcer resources in the South. Most water withdrawals are for agriculture and industry, with only 18 percent of water withdrawals made for drinking water supply. About one third of the water withdrawn for municipal supply is not billed to the customers because of leakage, malfunctioning water meters and water theft.

Water supply and sanitation in Georgia is characterized by achievements and challenges. Among the achievements is the improvement of water services in the capital Tbilisi where the water supply is now continuous and of good quality, major improvements in the country's third-largest city Batumi on the Black Sea where the country's first modern wastewater treatment plant now is under operation, as well as a general increase in access to drinking water in the entire country. Water and sewer tariffs remain affordable, with the private water company Georgian Water and Power (GWP) serving the capital being financially viable and profitable, while the public water company serving most of the rest of the country remains financially weak. The improvements were achieved after the Rose Revolution of 2004 when the government decided to reform the sector and to invest in it after many years of neglect.

References

  1. ↑ OECD:Pricing of Water Services, Paris 1987, p. 23-34
  2. ↑ Ariel Dinar: The Political Economy of Water Pricing Reforms, World Bank, 2000
  3. ↑ Celine Nauges and Dale Whittington. Oct 2016. “Evaluating the Performance of Alternative Municipal Water Tariff Designs: Quantifying the Tradeoffs between Equity, Economic Efficiency, and Cost Recovery” World Development 91, 125–143 , accessed on 21 November 2019
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OECD:Managing Water for All:An OECD perspective on pricing and financing, Chapter 3:The Central Role of Tariffs, p. 73-94, 2009
  5. ↑ International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities:[www.ib-net.org], accessed on May 30, 2017
  6. ↑ "IBNet Tariffs Database". tariffs.ib-net.org. Retrieved March 11, 2023.
  7. ↑ International Water Association:International Water Association Task Group on Tariffs and Financing, accessed on January 24, 2010
  8. ↑ NUS Consulting, accessed on January 24, 2010
  9. 1 2 OECD: The Price of Water: Trends in OECD countries, 1999, accessed on January 21, 2010
  10. 1 2 "Tariff Benchmarking (Current USD) - IBNet Tariffs Database". tariffs.ib-net.org. Retrieved 8 July 2017.
  11. ↑ Global Water Intelligence 2012 Water Tariff Survey, September 2012, Global Water Intelligence vol 13 issue 9 pp37-41
  12. ↑ Clovis Hanford Water Rates Will Rise Soon
  13. ↑ Price Survey Table
  14. ↑ OECD/Global Water Intelligence Water Tariff Survey 2007, quoted in:Peter Gleick, The World's Water 2008-2009, p. 321-323
  15. ↑ P. Herrington: Critical Review of Relevant Research Concerning the Effects of Charging and Collection Methods on Water Demand , Different Customer Groups and Debt, UK Water Industry Research, 2006
  16. 1 2 3 4 OECD:Social issues in the provision and pricing of water services, 2003, accessed on January 21, 2010

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.