Question 16383 — water and sanitation

Summary

Mr. Nicolas Ray draws the attention of the Minister of Regional Planning and Decentralization to the financing conditions of the public sanitation service in small municipalities. Article L. 2224-11 of the general code of local authorities (CGCT) provides that public water and sanitation services are financially managed as services of an industrial and commercial nature and, as such, their financing is in principle based on fees collected from users in return for the service provided. However, the CGCT provides for several relaxations. Article L. 2224-11 notably allows municipalities with less than 3,000 inhabitants to cover certain expenses relating to water distribution and sanitation services in their own budget. On the other hand, under article L. 2221-11 of the CGCT, for municipalities of less than 500 inhabitants, the establishment of an annex budget for drinking water distribution and sanitation services managed in the form of simple or direct management is optional, subject to producing as an annex to the budget and the single financial account a summary statement tracing the revenue and expenditure allocated to these services. These provisions therefore allow certain rural municipalities to trace the operations of their sanitation service in their main budget, without establishing a subsidiary budget and to cover certain expenses of the service through their own budget. However, the regulatory provisions relating to sanitation and in particular articles R. 2224-19 and R. 2224-19-1 of the general code of local authorities, provide that any public sanitation service, whatever its mode of operation, gives rise to the collection of royalties. They also provide that the municipal council or the deliberative body of the competent public establishment establishes a sanitation fee for the part of the service it provides and sets the price. In this context, certain municipalities with fewer than 500 inhabitants are questioning the exact scope of the option provided for by article L. 2221-11 of the general code of local authorities. They wish find out if the absence of an annexed budget, when the service is financed in the main budget, can make it possible not to introduce a sanitation fee, or if this option only constitutes budgetary and accounting flexibility without impact on the fee obligation. He asks it to clearly specify whether the reform of water agency fees has had the effect of making it payable to municipalities of less than 500 residents who do not have an additional budget, royalties which were not claimed from them before this reform. He also asks it to indicate whether the absence of an additional budget and the integration of drinking water or sanitation services into the main budget can exempt the appeal of these fees, or if they are now due regardless of the budget presentation method used by the municipality. While measures of simplification are widely demanded today, it would be inconceivable to impose new and complex obligations on small municipalities. He wants to know his position on this subject.

Machine translation from French. The official text remains authoritative.

Timeline

No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

No documents linked.

Sponsors

No sponsors or actors listed by the source.

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.