Split wastewater fee

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term split or split wastewater fee ( GAG ) describes in the Federal Republic of Germany the separate collection of fees for wastewater and rainwater .

background

When waste water , which in a municipal sewage disposal facility ( drains and sewage treatment plant passes), a distinction is made between

  • Dirty water
  • Rainwater ( rainwater ) from land
  • Rainwater from public streets and squares

The federal states have basically transferred the obligation to dispose of this wastewater to the municipalities (Section 56 (1) of the Water Management Act in conjunction with the respective state laws, e.g. Art. 34 (1) of the Bavarian Water Act).

The costs of removing rainwater from public roads and squares are usually borne by the road construction authorities.

The costs for the removal and cleaning of the dirty water and rainwater from the property must be borne by the property owner ( local tax laws of the individual states in conjunction with the fee statutes of the individual communities).

The municipalities have initially settled the costs of the wastewater disposal facility to be borne by the property owners using a uniform wastewater fee. For pure wastewater dischargers, this uniform fee must be reduced appropriately compared to dischargers of wastewater and rainwater. This uniform introduction fee is basically calculated according to the modified fresh water standard (= the water taken from the water supply and possibly from other sources, e.g. wells, minus the water quantities verifiably retained on the property).

As a result of various court rulings, separate fees for wastewater and rainwater must now be set and levied (= split wastewater fee) (with a few exceptions).

requirement

The levying of a uniform fee for wastewater (wastewater and rainwater) according to the modified fresh water standard is unobjectionable according to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court if the costs of rainwater disposal to be covered by the fees are only insignificant. Insignificance in this sense is given if the cost of rainwater disposal in the chargeable costs of the entire drainage facility does not exceed 12% (BVerwG, decision of March 25, 1985, No. 8 B 11.84). In case of doubt, the municipality bears the burden of proof that the levying of a split sewage fee can be dispensed with (BayVGH, judgment of March 31, 2003, Az. 23 B 02.1937).

The administrative court of Baden-Wuerttemberg states in the ruling of March 11, 2010 (Az. 2 S 2938/08) in the guiding principle: “The levying of a uniform wastewater fee calculated according to the fresh water standard for the disposal of wastewater and rainwater is also generally a violation of smaller communities against the principle of equality in Article 3 (1) of the Basic Law and the principle of equivalence. "

The consequence for the municipalities is that - apart from a few, probably only theoretically conceivable exceptions - instead of a uniform wastewater fee, a wastewater fee and a rainwater fee with different fee scales must be levied (= split wastewater fee). The Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg does not see any disproportionate and therefore no longer justifiable financial costs involved.

The yardstick for the dirty water fee is the modified freshwater yardstick. The paved land area serves as a yardstick for the rainwater charge.

Court judgments

There are (after several private lawsuits) a number of court rulings from higher courts that declared the calculation of wastewater charges according to the “uniform fresh water standard” to be inadmissible.

In summary, they result in the imperative to introduce a split wastewater fee for all municipalities in which the cost share of rainwater disposal in the chargeable costs of the entire drainage system is more than 12%.

Possible effects

The split wastewater fee creates financial incentives for unsealing , rainwater use and rainwater infiltration on site and is a contribution to flood prevention and the preservation of wet habitats . It is thus also a communal ecological control instrument .

The introduction of the split fee is also an opportunity for the respective municipalities to create an overall concept for ecological rainwater management . This includes, for example, the reactivation of trenches and the creation of hedges in the area of ​​agricultural and forestry areas. This reduces the probability of flood events with the associated economic damage.

Flood prevention

Cost containment

Infiltration and unsealing are a contribution to flood prevention. They help to save costs in the construction of canals and rainwater retention basins and thus relieve the taxpayers.

Environmental precaution

In the event of heavy rain , sewers and sewage treatment plants may not be able to fully absorb the water. Then polluted (mixed) water flows in ditches, brooks and rivers (so-called rollover ), which are also referred to as receiving waters under this aspect . This can lead to damage to and change in their fauna and flora : this risk is reduced by dampening the flow rates and peaks.

Fairness of fees

The split wastewater fee helps ensure that the respective polluter pays the costs of rainwater disposal. It brings more fairness to fees . Families or, for example, residents of closed buildings (multi-family houses) tend to be financially relieved, as do some agricultural businesses, as they have relatively few sealed areas per user. With the introduction of the split wastewater fee, it can no longer happen that larger families are charged tens of times more for the costs of rainwater removal per square meter of paved area compared to a supermarket. This enormous additional burden also occurs in some cases if the cost share of rainwater disposal is below 12%.

Companies and facilities with large sealed areas and low fresh water consumption (supermarkets, schools) are burdened more heavily than before the introduction of the split wastewater fee.

The respective building contractor ( municipality , district , state or federal government ) must bear the costs for the discharge of rainwater from the area of ​​public roads . In Hesse, however, these costs are completely borne by the municipalities due to the provisions of the Hessian Road Act.

Regarding the fairness of fees, the association "Haus und Grund" criticizes the costs of the change to a split wastewater fee demanded by the Baden-Württemberg administrative court. Aerial photographs to record the actually sealed areas and the administrative effort are cost factors that cannot be disregarded in the overall assessment and burden the taxpayer. The court, however, did not see any disproportionate costs.

Capture

Aerial photo cadastre

To record the sealed areas, aerial photographs are used and they are compared with the planning documents of the surveying and land registry offices ( geographic information system ). In some places, aerial photographs are taken on the occasion of the GAG ​​introduction. However, since the aerial photographs do not reveal whether the sealed area is also connected to the sewage system and is therefore subject to a fee, the self-assessment (as binding as a tax return) cannot be dispensed with for the purpose of legally secure assessment.

Self-assessment

In order to determine their rainwater charges, consumers place the size of the sealed area on their property in a consumption class. This procedure can be supplemented by random sampling and by regulations. These should enable additional claims in the event of incorrect information.

literature

  • Friends of the Earth, State Association of North Rhine-Westphalia eV, State Working Group on Water, Willi Hennebrüder: Is the split wastewater fee necessary? as a PDF file . In: Article from municipal tax magazine, issue 1/2003, pages 5ff., Federation for Environment and Nature Conservation Germany ( BUND )
  • B.Jayme / W.Kreilinger: Separate wastewater charges , after 11 months and with 62,000 euros at the destination . Description of the introduction of the split wastewater fee in the municipality of Calden, district of Kassel. Published by ePubli

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ VGH Baden-Württemberg, judgment of February 11, 2010 - full text
  2. ↑ Hessischer VGH, judgment of September 2, 2009 - full text
  3. ↑ VG Aachen - press release of March 11, 2005  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.vg-aachen.nrw.de  
  4. ↑ VG Lüneburg, judgment of May 31, 2007 - full text (PDF file; 127 kB)
  5. ↑ BayVGH, judgment of March 31, 2003 - full text (PDF file; 147 kB)
  6. ↑ BVerwG, decision of August 18, 2003 - full text
  7. ↑ forum-verwaltungsrecht.de Münster court, judgment of 18 December 2007 - Full text
  8. ^ [1] , BUND Lemgo, Willi Hennebrüder, accessed on March 20, 2010
  9. ↑ So Manfred Bok von Haus und Grund In: Martina Lachenmaier: Split sewage fee: The association "Haus und Grund" criticizes the administrative flood for property owners In: Neckar-Chronik of July 8, 2010.
  10. ↑ for example in the city of Viersen in North Rhine-Westphalia. These recordings can also be used for other purposes, for example to track down structures without a building permit .
  11. ↑ See the chapter on recording the sealed surfaces in Fabry, wastewater charges for rainwater .