Water and wastewater prices in Germany

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The water prices as well as the water and wastewater charges in Germany should be calculated according to the cost recovery principle , taking into account the environmental and resource costs . As a rule, two components form the price or the fee. The basic price or the basic fee should cover the fixed costs and is based on the size of the water meter or the number of residential units as a basis for assessment. The volume or labor price is based on the amount of water purchased in cubic meters . The wastewater fee is also based on the amount of fresh water purchased. A fixed fee for wastewater is also the rainwater fee . One speaks of prices when the supply companies are organized under private law, for example as an AG or GmbH, regardless of whether the companies are publicly or privately owned. On the other hand, one speaks of fees if the utility companies are organized under public law. On the other hand, public-law companies have the freedom of choice to also raise private-sector prices. While the fees are exempt from VAT, 7 percent VAT must be added to the quantity and base prices.

Establishment of prices and fees

The public-law fees and private-sector tariffs of around 6,700 German water supply and wastewater disposal companies are based on the following factors:

But there are also ...

  • Costs arising from the corporate structure and its efficiency , as well as
  • the costs of a reasonable return for the (usually municipal) shareholders (depending on the legal form of the supplier and state law)
  • Cost of capital for previous and current investments and
  • Water procurement costs.

Water prices / charges and wastewater charges in public discussion

Since the beginning of the 1990s, the costs of drinking water prices and wastewater charges have been the subject of increased discussion in Germany and are subject to greater public attention, which some describe as "increasing politicization".

In contrast to the public water supply, there are no legal requirements for the calculation of water prices for the private water supply relationship. The contractual relationship is regulated by the statutory provisions of the AVBWasserV. However, these do not contain any specifications for the water price calculation, but only regulate the more detailed details of the survey of building cost subsidies, the reimbursement of house connection costs and other reimbursements (commissioning, reminder and delay costs as well as costs for setting and resuming the water supply).

The legal basis of the (purely) public law water fee calculation results from the municipal tax law, which is finally regulated in the individual municipal tax laws (KAG) of the federal states. The specific implementation of the fee collection permitted under the respective CISA is then carried out by the respective municipal water supply statute or the contribution and fee statute. The fees are determined on the basis of the applicable costs and approved by the responsible municipality or city council by means of a fee statute. Unlike water prices, fees are not subject to any control by the state cartel authorities or the Federal Cartel Office. Andreas Mundt , President of the Federal Cartel Office , therefore called for a uniform control of prices and charges for water and wastewater by the federal government. However, this was rejected by Bernhard Heitzer (FDP), State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Economics, and legally stipulated by the 8th amendment to the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB).

A pure price focus is judged to be inappropriate for the drinking water supply, because the public water supply is a task of general interest. The Water Management Act in connection with the respective state water laws establishes a special legal framework for the public water supply. In addition, there are requirements regarding water management from the EU Water Framework Directive (requirement of cost recovery) and the EU Groundwater Directive. The spectrum of regulations ranges from the fundamental determination of the public water supply providers to options for transferring the performance of tasks and the sale or transfer of associated facilities to third parties to technical requirements for construction, operation and monitoring. Further requirements result from the relevant statutes and ordinances of the federal states. In addition to the requirements from water management, health-related requirements, namely the Drinking Water Ordinance, must also be taken into account.

Antitrust review of water prices

The water supply is a natural monopoly , as there is only one water supplier in a supply area who provides the public drinking water supply on the basis of a concession. The control of private-sector fees by a state cartel authority is permitted for the sale of water ( Section 102 GWB). The state cartel authorities did not make use of this right until 2007. The Hessian Ministry of Economics, Transport and Regional Development, in its role as the state cartel authority, questioned water prices for the first time, whereupon several other countries also did the same.

Baden-Württemberg

The cartel authority in Baden-Württemberg checked the three most expensive public utilities in the state and found the water prices in the city of Calw to be too expensive. Now the company Energie Calw is to reduce its water prices by 35%. In this case, the company expects losses of around 1.9 million euros and considers the instructions from the antitrust authorities to be unlawful. Therefore, a lawsuit against the instruction of the Ministry is not excluded.

Berlin

A curious event occurred during the review of water prices in Berlin by the Federal Cartel Office: The Berlin Senator for Economic Affairs and Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Wasserbetriebe, left-wing politician Harald Wolf , had asked the Federal Cartel Office to review the prices. Critics accuse the left-wing politician of a conflict of interest.

Hesse

The state of Hesse shows huge differences in fresh water and wastewater prices between different municipalities. The costs for fresh water and wastewater vary by over 300 percent from the cheapest to the most expensive municipality. In order to make the water costs comparable and to achieve a possible reduction in prices and fees, the Hessian Chambers of Commerce and Industry have created a nationwide comparison in the form of a fresh water and wastewater monitor. The internet application shows the water prices in all Hessian municipalities.

In 2007, the Hessian Ministry of Economics, Transport and Regional Development forced the water and energy supplier Enwag (the majority of which belongs to the city of Wetzlar ) to reduce the prices for water and wastewater by 29%. Up to this point in time, this procedure was unique in Germany. In January 2010 the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that the authority's measure was legal. However, the BGH Cartel Senate confirmed the judgment of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court , which had ruled in 2008 that the State of Hesse is not entitled to determine the price retrospectively from 2005 onwards. The water supplier justified the high water prices with the difficult situation on the edge of the low mountain range, which made water distribution difficult and expensive. In favor of Enwag, the state cartel authority and the BGH assumed that an unfavorable topography could justify higher prices. However, the state cartel authority and the Federal Court of Justice saw Enwag as responsible for proving the extent to which the topography influences the costs. Enwag did not comply with this obligation, so that corresponding topography-related disadvantages could not be taken into account.

Since then, the Hessian state cartel authority has checked nine water suppliers and achieved a price reduction in three cases.

Lower Saxony

The state cartel authority in Lower Saxony checked the water prices in 2010 in a drinking water price comparison. In mid-May 2011, the Lower Saxony Ministry of Economics asked the eight most expensive water suppliers in the country to explain the price. Companies must now prove the "attributable circumstances" for the high water prices. Attributable circumstances are cost factors that the water supplier cannot influence. The prices for drinking water per cubic meter are over two euros for all eight companies. At the cheapest water supplier in Lower Saxony, one cubic meter of water costs 0.58 euros.

Statistical recording of water charges

Since 2007, institutions , corporations , companies and municipalities have had to provide the Federal Statistical Office with information on their water fees. The legal basis for this is provided by the Environmental Statistics Act (UStatG), amended in 2005 . The data for the reporting year with a reference date of January 1 and the two preceding years are collected for cost recording. The following data is requested:

  • Water extraction and quantity, location of the extraction system
  • Own use of the supplier
  • Consumption-dependent cubic meter price for water withdrawal and number of residents supplied
  • Type, length and year of construction of the sewer network as well as number and storage volume of the rain relief systems
  • Type of treatment of wastewater, foreign water and rainwater
  • Consumption- independent basic water fee, based on the meter size . Some water suppliers calculate the basic fee according to an annual consumption class.
  • Basic sewage fee
  • Wastewater fee per extracted cubic meter. The following applies: Fresh water purchase = amount of wastewater
  • Area-related rainwater fee per square meter of sealed area
  • other fees

Only recurring costs are taken into account in the survey. A one-time connection fee, for example, is not taken into account. In addition, the survey relates exclusively to normal household charges; bulk buyers are not taken into account.

Price comparisons between German cities

Price comparisons in general

Since the calculation of water and wastewater prices and charges depends on a large number of very different parameters, the comparison between German cities and municipalities is only partially meaningful or even partially misleading. Depending on which starting parameters are chosen for a comparative study, the results vary considerably in some cases. General statements such as: "In Berlin, water is more expensive than in Cologne" are generally not applicable. A precise statement such as: "In Berlin the water in an apartment building with a paved area of ​​80 m 2 for a family of four with a daily water consumption of 400 liters is cheaper than in Cologne" .

When comparing fees and tariffs between two or more German cities, it is often wrongly assumed that the general conditions in the cities are identical. If that were the case, a simple comparison of prices and fees would identify one provider as particularly expensive and another as particularly cheap. This assumption is wrong because a number of influencing factors influence a price comparison. Therefore, the following applies to all studies and comparisons: The simpler the methodology used, the greater the probability that the result will not be applicable.

Comparisons in antitrust law

A distinction must be made between this and the question of whether prices of a certain amount are justified. For comparison, the State Cartel Authority of Hessen measures the supply density, the customer density and the residents supplied, the water supply, the supply structure and the total income. Among these, the so-called " meter quantity value " is of particular importance because it allows conclusions to be drawn about the supply density. The meter quantity value indicates how many cubic meters of water are supplied per meter of pipe network. A low meter value is an indication of rather unfavorable conditions.

The meter quantity value was criticized by the industry association BDEW shortly before the BGH decision in the "Wetzlar water prices" case, but was nevertheless approved by the Federal Court of Justice. However, the meter quantity value is only suitable for an internal comparison between two similar supply companies: two suppliers with similar meter quantity values ​​should have similar prices. If they do not, this is an indication (but not yet proof) that the company with the higher price is charging excessive prices.

Ultimately, comparisons in antitrust law must stand up to judicial review. In the antitrust proceedings in Hesse, many factors were compared and differences in the supply structure as well as other disadvantages or advantages due to surcharges and discounts in favor of the company being examined were taken into account. Enwag was compared with a total of 18 companies. The basis for comparison was a 14-page questionnaire with well over 100 individual data.

Price comparison between neighboring communities

The water prices between neighboring communities differ significantly: For example, the annual water bill in Kleinheubach in Franconia is 140 euros with an annual consumption of 150 cubic meters, while in neighboring Großheubach on the opposite side of the Main, the same amount is paid for 574 euros. In Saxony-Anhalt, 335 euros are paid in Thale , while consumers in Elbingerode pay 610 euros.

Price comparison between federal states

The Federal Statistical Office examined the average water bills of private households in the years 2005 to 2010 (see table). The statistics take into account the “consumption-dependent fee” (cubic meter price) and the “normal household consumption-independent fee” (basic fee). A basic assumption has been confirmed several times since the mid-1990s: Price comparisons show that the prices for water in the new federal states are around a quarter more expensive than in the old federal states.

Water bill in euros (gross) per year when 80 m³ are used and actually calculated costs

Federal / state 2005
remuneration
2005
costs
2010
fee
Coat of arms of Baden-Württemberg (lesser) .svg Baden-Württemberg 166.22 166.04 182.98
Bavaria Wappen.svg Bavaria 129.90 129.51 149.24
Coat of arms of Berlin.svg Berlin 176.80 176.80 190.72
Brandenburg Wappen.svg Brandenburg 220.52 220.45 200.55
Bremen coat of arms (middle) .svg Bremen 189.93 189.79 186.97
DEU Hamburg COA.svg Hamburg 173.08 173.08 182.74
Coat of arms of Hesse.svg Hesse 181.45 181.53 191.02
Coat of arms of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (great) .svg Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 199.11 199.26 210.66
Coat of arms of Lower Saxony.svg Lower Saxony 137.28 137.06 145.75
Coat of arms of North Rhine-Westfalia.svg North Rhine-Westphalia 227.44 227.49 241.69
Coat of arms of Rhineland-Palatinate.svg Rhineland-Palatinate 177.00 177.14 195.82
Coat of arms of the Saarland Saarland 187.77 187.73 226.62
Coat of arms of Saxony.svg Saxony 270.46 270.66 275.93
Coat of arms Saxony-Anhalt.svg Saxony-Anhalt 219.38 219.31 229.90
DEU Schleswig-Holstein COA.svg Schleswig-Holstein 137.00 137.21 145.40
Coat of arms of Thuringia, svg Thuringia 264.79 264.98 273.34
Coat of arms of Germany.svg Germany 185.26 187.92 197.60

Average fee for the disposal of wastewater from private households 2005 to 2007

Invoice in euros per year for 80 m 3 of wastewater and a sealed area of 80 m 2

Federal / state 2005 2006 2007
Coat of arms of Baden-Württemberg (lesser) .svg Baden-Württemberg 174.50 177.79 181.46
Bavaria Wappen.svg Bavaria 158.42 160.21 161.65
Coat of arms of Berlin.svg Berlin 314.40 320.00 335.20
Brandenburg Wappen.svg Brandenburg 351.04 351.59 352.84
Bremen coat of arms (middle) .svg Bremen 230.33 230.33 230.33
DEU Hamburg COA.svg Hamburg 206.40 206.40 206.40
Coat of arms of Hesse.svg Hesse 219.27 221.37 226.37
Coat of arms of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (great) .svg Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania 284.51 292.75 295.39
Coat of arms of Lower Saxony.svg Lower Saxony 201.10 202.18 203.93
Coat of arms of North Rhine-Westfalia.svg North Rhine-Westphalia 240.48 245.52 251.86
Coat of arms of Rhineland-Palatinate.svg Rhineland-Palatinate 187.94 189.42 191.64
Coat of arms of the Saarland Saarland 250.96 253.51 263.73
Coat of arms of Saxony.svg Saxony 278.69 284.39 291.09
Coat of arms Saxony-Anhalt.svg Saxony-Anhalt 343.52 346.80 351.28
DEU Schleswig-Holstein COA.svg Schleswig-Holstein 216.41 222.33 227.27
Coat of arms of Thuringia, svg Thuringia 229.10 234.49 237.86
Coat of arms of Germany.svg Germany 221.83 225.17 229.50

International price comparison

A comparison of water and wastewater prices and charges in Germany with other EU states is just as difficult as a nationwide comparison. Fixed or variable tariff structures, different costs for new connections, billing modalities, taxes and duties, depreciation , tax burdens, liquidity , accumulation of reserves, subsidies and cross-subsidies as well as differences in the quality of the drinking water supply are the most important factors that make such a comparison difficult.

According to a study carried out in 2010 on behalf of the Federal Association of Energy and Water Management (BDEW), the lobby group for water suppliers, per capita water expenditure in Germany amounted to EUR 82 per year and was thus higher than in England and Austria, but lower than in France. The wastewater expenditure was 116 euros per capita per year and was higher than in France and Austria, but lower than in England. According to the study, the lower spending in these countries is due to a combination of subsidies and a lower level of performance. If these were taken into account, the expenditure for water and wastewater in Germany and the countries compared would be similar.

Regional differences in utility prices

There are several reasons for the sometimes large regional differences in water and wastewater costs, which deviate accordingly from the national average: On the one hand, the hydrological, topographical and geological conditions of different regions are very different, which affects the extraction and treatment of water . In addition, the structure of the settlement, the degree of connection and the rate of renewal of the drinking water networks influence the costs of the water suppliers and thus consumer prices. The high proportion of fixed costs incurred by the water supplier remains independent of the amount of water pumped. The costs for infrastructure and maintenance costs, which ensure the long-term functionality of the water supply, make a significant contribution to the costs.

The supplier's fixed costs are well over 80 percent.

While the President of the Alliance of Public Water Management (AöW), Stemplewski, thinks that the profit from the water business is generally very limited, and Marc Steinhäuser explains in the Süddeutsche Zeitung that the regionally very different water price is explained by the expensive infrastructure and the kilometers of lines, critics argue that the fixed cost component can very well also be the result of failed operations. Calculations by the Hessian state cartel authority in the Enwag case showed that the Wetzlar supplier has to incur maintenance costs per manhole structure and year that exceed the costs of new construction. In addition, the profits that are made in the water sector are profits that are generated without competition and therefore with a very high degree of probability.

A comparison between Wetzlar and Montabaur shows the influence of operational management on costs. According to the state cartel authority, the municipality of Wetzlar justifies the excessive water prices with the hilly terrain, although the city is largely flat. In the municipality of Montabaur, on the other hand, which is actually hilly, cost-cutting potentials are being exploited and water prices are 30% lower than in Welzlar. Among other things, a ring main was built so that water now flows by gravity and four previously used pumping stations are superfluous. In addition, the network is carefully mapped digitally, which means that repairs can be kept to a minimum.

99 percent of the water and 96 percent of the wastewater costs in Germany are paid by consumers. The average annual costs per person are € 82 for supply and € 116 for wastewater disposal, of which 21.6% are taxes and duties.

Price development

As a result of the increased use of water-saving technologies, water consumption in Germany has decreased from 6000 million m 3 in 1990 to around 4680 million m 3 in 2004. In the same period, the water supply and wastewater disposal companies invested around 30 billion euros. Since then, the investment and inflation-related price increase has leveled off at 0.6% since the decline in consumer prices subsided.

Causes of Price Development

Due to the falling water consumption, systems have to be adapted to the lower flow rates, which is associated with additional technical expenses and additional costs. An example of these additional costs is the price increase between 1992 and 2007 at Germany's largest water supply company, Berliner Wasserbetriebe : Here 56.2% of the price increase can be attributed to the reduced water consumption. Since less wastewater flows through the sewer system, the operators pump up to 800,000 liters of drinking water through the sewer system every day in order to avoid contamination of the pipes. Due to the greatly reduced water consumption, more and more harmful substances such as nickel , lead and copper are deposited in the pipes. Some operators replace the old, thick pipes with thinner ones in order to increase the flow rate of the wastewater. If the wastewater flows off too slowly or in too small quantities, the sewer systems become dirty and foul smells are the result. Because of the greatly reduced or completely eliminated water and wastewater flow, the infrastructure in rural regions and cities in the new federal states is being dismantled.

Further reasons for a price increase are the increased legal requirements for the drinking water supply, reduced or discontinued subsidies due to empty public coffers, tax increases in the field of water supply and sewage disposal, as well as the introduction of new taxes and duties.

Another reason for rising prices can also be that the necessary adjustments to the network structure to a changing usage structure are omitted. A decline in the number of customers (e.g. due to demographic change ) but also a selective increase in water consumption (e.g. due to the settlement of water-intensive businesses) requires an adjustment of the network. If this is not done, avoidable cost increases arise.

Water prices in Berlin

Since the partial privatization of Berliner Wasserbetriebe in 1999, the development of water prices in Berlin and the comparison with other federal states have been under special public observation. Formally, the discussion about water and wastewater prices culminated in an adopted referendum , with which the partial privatization agreements of Berliner Wasserbetriebe were disclosed. With the disclosure, the initiators of the referendum want to create the prerequisites for reviewing and contesting the contracts independently. To this end, a working group of independent lawyers has been formed who, in close cooperation with Transparency International and the Berlin Consumer Center, initiated an examination procedure against the Commission. The justification for the need is that, on the one hand, the contractually guaranteed profit equalization liability in favor of the private shareholders constitutes a violation of state aid law and, on the other hand, the right to tender has not been complied with. If the European investigation procedure confirms these suspicions, this would result in the nullity of the contracts and the partial privatization would have to be reversed. The loss of private returns could cut water prices in Berlin massively. Since then, there have been repeated assessments, studies and statements that quantify the prices for water and wastewater. When trying to determine comparative values, it is not uncommon for incorrect assessments to occur that distort the result. In the sample calculations of the Federal Statistical Office, for example, a sealed area of ​​80 m 2 is taken as the basis for the rainwater charge - an atypical value for Berlin. Just 7.9% of Berlin's households live in single-family houses, 89.8% of Berliners live in houses with at least three residential units. The highest single-family house density with around 40% share are found in Rhineland-Palatinate , Lower Saxony , Schleswig-Holstein and Saarland . In the city states of Bremen and Hamburg this value is 22.8% and 14.8%. The survey also does not take into account the groundwater abstraction fee in Berlin, which is the most expensive in Germany at 31 cents per m 3 - the national average is 6 cents per m 3 . In addition, there are regulations by European water law, as well as state-specific fees, concession fees and, in some cases, investment aid with which the state can influence the price development of Berliner Wasserbetriebe. A report by the Humboldt University of Berlin commissioned and financed by the IHK Berlin comes to the conclusion:

"The results show that drinking water prices rose less sharply after the partial privatization than before the partial privatization."

- Joachim Schwalbach : Brief report. Evaluation of the remunicipalisation of the Berliner Wasserbetriebe

The discussion about water prices in Berlin is also about a possible buyback of BWB shares from RWE. In the event of a buyback, a drop in water and wastewater prices by 1.8 to 3.0% is to be expected. All 3.46 million Berliners would pay 1.19 euros less a year for water and wastewater at a buyback price of 2.26 billion euros. However, it would take 132 years to pay off the loans taken out for the repurchase. Another factor for water prices would be reduced efficiency in the case of remunicipalisation, while the experience and knowledge gained by private companies would break away. The consequences would be rising water prices. Critics accuse the IHK report of not having taken into account the significance and consequences of the referendum or the contestation of the contracts. The contractually guaranteed profit distribution in Berlin alone amounted to 270 million euros in the financial year. A water supply aimed purely to cover costs without a profit distribution would lead to an annual relief of 320 euros for a household with 4 people.

See also

Individual evidence

  1. Federal Government: Modernization strategy for the German water industry and for a stronger international commitment of the German water industry . March 15, 2006, p. 47
  2. a b Prof. Dr. Dr. Karl-Ulrich Rudolph; Dr.-Ing. Carsten Haneke; Dipl.-Ök. Thomas Block; Stefanie Backhouse, LLM; Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr. rer. pole. K.-U. Rudolph: Guide to the development of high-performance municipal and mixed-economy companies in water supply and wastewater disposal. (PDF) Water Guide. In: Documentation No. 547. Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor, July 1, 2005, p. 6 , archived from the original on March 20, 2011 ; Retrieved March 20, 2011 .
  3. a b Dipl.-Geographer Hans Lamp, Dr. Thomas Grundmann: New pay statistics in the water and wastewater management. (PDF) Methodology and results. Federal Statistical Office, June 2009, pp. 596–601 , archived from the original on March 19, 2011 ; Retrieved March 19, 2011 .
  4. ^ A b E. Hamacher, M. Posch: Violent wrangling over the cost of water. Consumer prices. In: Welt Online. Axel Springer Verlag, June 25, 2010, archived from the original on March 19, 2011 ; Retrieved March 19, 2011 .
  5. Groundwater levels of the main aquifer and the Panke valley aquifer. (PDF; 495 kB) Senate Department for Urban Development Berlin, 2009, pp. 1–11 , archived from the original on March 20, 2011 ; Retrieved March 20, 2011 .
  6. a b c d e Prof. Dr. Joachim Schwalbach; Dr. Anja Schwerk; Daniel Smuda: Costs and benefits of the remunicipalisation of Berliner Wasserbetriebe. (PDF; 1.7 MB) Brief report. Humboldt University of Berlin , Faculty of Business and Economics, Institute for Management, March 28, 2011, p. 3 , archived from the original on April 4, 2011 ; Retrieved April 4, 2011 .
  7. Anselm Waldermann: Expensive water - consumers pay hundreds euro too much. Great comparison table. In: Spiegel Online. Spiegel Online GmbH, May 29, 2007, archived from the original on March 18, 2011 ; Retrieved March 18, 2011 .
  8. Every day the 6,700 waterworks in Germany sell a total of ten billion liters of water. Water costs. In: energiesparen-im-haushalt.de. Saving energy in the home, archived from the original on March 19, 2011 ; Retrieved March 19, 2011 .
  9. ^ Fritz Vorholz: The H 2 O stores. Water. In: The time. Zeitverlag Gerd Bucerius GmbH & Co. KG, March 6, 2003, archived from the original on April 25, 2011 ; Retrieved April 25, 2011 .
  10. a b c d Dipl.-Ing. R. Andreas Kraemer, Ralph Piotrowski: Water prices in European comparison. (PDF; 85 kB) Abstract. Ecologic, Center for International and European Environmental Research, April 1, 1998, p. 6 , archived from the original on April 27, 2011 ; Retrieved on April 28, 2011 : “Not only in Germany but in all member states of the European Union is currently a trend towards rising prices for water supply. Linked to this is often an increasing politicization of this area of ​​public services. "
  11. Video ZDF Zoom: Expensive Drops - Beate Höbermann and Torben Schmidt (May 8, 2013, 10:15 am, 28:30 min., Min. 24-26)  in the ZDFmediathek , accessed on February 11, 2014.
  12. Fact check water prices on vku.de , accessed on September 2, 2017.
  13. dpa-lsw: According to the ministry, water prices are too high. Calw. In: Schwarzwälder Bote Online. Schwarzwälder Bote Mediengesellschaft mbH, February 28, 2011, accessed on March 19, 2011 .
  14. Jens Anker: Wolf hopes for low water prices from 2012. Interview. In: Berliner Morgenpost Online. Axel Springer Verlag, March 12, 2011, archived from the original on May 2, 2011 ; Retrieved May 2, 2011 .
  15. Ulrich Zawatka-Gerlach: Senators argue about the price of water. Red-Red water management. In: Tagesspiegel Online. Verlag Der Tagesspiegel GmbH, April 9, 2011, archived from the original on May 2, 2011 ; Retrieved May 2, 2011 .
  16. Study: Fresh and waste water monitor for the federal state of Hesse , (pdf, German, p. 38; 1.6 MB)
  17. Fresh and waste water monitor of the IHK Arbeitsgemeinschaft Hessen
  18. Az. II W 23/07
  19. a b c d e f g Hermann Daiber, "The decision of the Federal Court of Justice of February 2, 2010," Wetzlar water prices "- recent developments in water cartel law" in: gwf-Wasser | Abwasser, pp. 226–235.
  20. a b c Decision of the Federal Court of Justice of February 2, 2011, KVR 66/08 - Wetzlar water prices in the decision database of the Federal Court of Justice.
  21. mm / dpa / Reuters: Hesse wins against water management. BGH judgment. In: manager-magazin.de. Dr. Arno Balzer, February 2, 2010, archived from the original on March 18, 2011 ; Retrieved March 18, 2011 .
  22. jus / dpa: Cartel Office is reviewing some water suppliers. Hessian companies had asked very high prices. In: 3Sat Online. Authorized representative within the meaning of Section 55 (1) of the State Treaty on Broadcasting and Telemedia, Section 5 (1) of the Telemedia Act: Artistic Director Markus Schächter, October 27, 2009, accessed on April 22, 2011 .
  23. Christian Budde: Cartel authority takes action against water suppliers with the highest drinking water prices. Drinking water prices. In: mw.niedersachsen.de. Lower Saxony Ministry of Economics, Labor and Transport, archived from the original on May 14, 2011 ; Retrieved May 14, 2011 .
  24. a b Law to streamline environmental statistics. (PDF) Environmental Statistics Act (UStatG). Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden, 2010, pp. 4-7 , archived from the original on March 18, 2011 ; Retrieved March 18, 2011 .
  25. Collection of water and wastewater charges. (PDF) Quality report. Federal Statistical Office, Wiesbaden 2008, December 1, 2008, pp. 1–16 , archived from the original on March 19, 2011 ; Retrieved March 19, 2011 .
  26. a b Stadtwerke Potsdam ; Confideon; Inomic, Prof. Dr. Thomas Lenk, University of Leipzig: Price and fee comparison for services of general interest . 2009, pp. 4–5
  27. ^ Ludwig Pawlowski: Costs and prices for water and sewage . In: Competence Center Water Berlin. March 2009, pp. 1–2
  28. BDEW on the antitrust control of water prices: New report: Unsuitable comparative standard ( memento of the original from October 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Press release on January 19, 2010, accessed on August 3, 2011. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bdew.de
  29. "Water supply" questionnaire of the Hessian State Cartel Authority / HMWVL  ( page no longer available , search in web archivesInfo: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. PDF accessed on August 4, 2011.@1@ 2Template: Toter Link / www.hessen.de  
  30. Video ZDF Zoom: Expensive drops - Beate Höbermann and Torben Schmidt (May 8, 2013, 10:15 am, 28:30 min., Min. 8-9)  in the ZDFmediathek , accessed on February 11, 2014., the numbers were calculated by ZDF on the basis of information from the state statistical offices.
  31. Average costs for the drinking water supply of private households 2005 to 2007. Water management. In: destatis.de. Federal Statistical Office of Germany, March 20, 2009, archived from the original on March 30, 2011 ; Retrieved March 30, 2011 .
  32. a b 2007: Two-person household pays 230 euros for wastewater. Press release No. 109 from 2009-03-20. In: destatis.de. Federal Statistical Office of Germany, March 20, 2009, archived from the original on March 30, 2011 ; Retrieved January 27, 2013 .
  33. no basic fee in the years 2005–2007
  34. Average costs for the disposal of wastewater from private households 2005 to 2007. Water management. In: destatis.de. Federal Statistical Office of Germany, archived from the original on March 30, 2011 ; Retrieved March 30, 2011 .
  35. Federal Association of Energy and Water Management: Comparison of European Water and Wastewater Prices (VEWA study) ( Memento of the original from June 19, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 10.3 MB), 2010 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bdew.de
  36. a b Guido Kleinhubbert: Weak beam. Consumer. In: spiegel.de. Spiegel Online GmbH, September 27, 2010, archived from the original on March 30, 2011 ; Retrieved March 30, 2011 .
  37. a b Marc Steinhäuser: Everything in the flow. The water business hardly brings any profit. In: sueddeutsche.de. sueddeutsche.de GmbH, August 18, 2008, accessed on March 30, 2011 : “The biggest problem in the water business is the cost: A reasonable supply can only be achieved through high investments. The regionally very different water price can be explained by the expensive infrastructure and the kilometers of pipes. "
  38. Lecture by the German Consumer Association on the occasion of the Hofgeismar Talks on the Common Goods Industry with reference to a slide from the State Cartel Authority, page 9 (PDF; 1.9 MB)
  39. Video ZDF Zoom: Expensive drops - Beate Höbermann and Torben Schmidt (May 8, 2013, 10:15 am, 28:30 min., Min. 21-24)  in the ZDFmediathek , accessed on February 11, 2014.
  40. ^ RA Dr. Jörg Rehberg: Comparison of European water and wastewater prices. (PDF; 10.3 MB) Study. Federal Association of Energy and Water Management V., September 1, 2010, p. 7 , archived from the original on April 27, 2011 ; Retrieved April 28, 2011 .
  41. Ludwig Pawlowski: 20 years of reunification - water prices and demand in Berlin in comparison . In: Competence Center Water Berlin. March 2010, p. 2
  42. Transparency International: EU Commission examines partial privatization of Berliner Wasserbetriebe. Press release of July 18, 2011. (No longer available online.) Archived from the original on January 20, 2012 ; Retrieved August 8, 2011 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.transparency.de
  43. Letter to the EU Commission, PDF. (PDF; 5.5 MB) (No longer available online.) Archived from the original on April 3, 2013 ; Retrieved August 8, 2011 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.transparency.de
  44. Interview with the lawyer Sabine Finkenthei: First steps against the secret contracts have been taken - more will follow. (July 19, 2011). Retrieved August 8, 2011 .
  45. Sound recording by EU and antitrust lawyer Prof. Keßler on July 19, 2011 at the press conference of Transparency International and the consumer association. ( WMA ; 1.8 MB) Retrieved August 8, 2011 .
  46. Model household pays 441 euros for water and wastewater in 2010. Press release No. 170 of April 29, 2011. In: destatis.de. Federal Statistical Office, April 29, 2011, archived from the original on May 1, 2011 ; Retrieved May 1, 2011 .
  47. ↑ of the updated apartments in residential and non-residential buildings (other buildings with living space) by Dipl.-Sociologist Ulrike Timm: Housing situation in Germany 2006. (PDF) Results of the additional microcensus survey. In: destatis.de. Federal Statistical Office , April 1, 2008, p. 115 , archived from the original on May 1, 2011 ; Retrieved May 1, 2011 .
  48. ^ Share check: RWE presents an offer to sell shares in Berliner Wasserbetriebe. In: wallstreet-online.de. wallstreet: online AG, April 8, 2011, archived from the original on May 1, 2011 ; Retrieved May 1, 2011 .
  49. Jan Thomsen: IHK ignites depth bomb. Berlin. In: Berliner Zeitung Online. Berliner Verlag GmbH, April 1, 2011, archived from the original on May 1, 2011 ; Retrieved May 1, 2011 .
  50. Thomas Rudek: Counterstrike by the privatization lobby - As if the water referendum had not happened. In: Rabe Ralf, August / September 2011, p. 6. Retrieved on August 8, 2011 .

literature