Hit the big water consumers in the wallet to make them responsible. Emmanuel Macron said he wanted the generalization of a “progressive and responsible pricing” of water Thursday, March 30, presenting his plan for this increasingly rare resource. Concretely, explains the president, “the first cubic meters are invoiced at a modest price, close to the cost price, [then] beyond a certain level, the price per cubic meter will be higher”.
The Ministry of Ecology specifies that the Economic, Social and Environmental Council “will be seized of a mission” within the year to make “recommendations” on this progressive pricing. Operation, cost for consumers, perverse effects… Decoding of a measure long carried by the left.
In most French municipalities, residents pay a basic subscription for their water, then each cubic meter is billed at a single price, regardless of consumption. An average French person uses 149 liters of water per day (i.e. 54 m3 per year per inhabitant and 120 m3 for an average household), with large disparities. The idea is therefore to establish differentiated prices in stages, advantageous for small consumers while making the larger ones pay.
François Hollande’s campaign promise in 2012, progressive pricing, originally with a more social than ecological aim, turned into an experiment voted on in 2013. A few cities had already taken it up, including Dunkirk, which applies three levels since 2012. In Montpellier, this system has also been applied since January 1, but with four levels, the first – up to 15 m3 – being free.
In a “flash mission” of February 2022, taking stock of the 2013 law, two deputies propose to generalize this progressive pricing with three levels. From 0 to 80 m3 per year per household, “essential” water would be charged at a “symbolic cost”. From 81 to 200 m3, “useful” water would have a “price lower than the cost of services”. Beyond that, “comfort” water would be much more expensive.
Local experiments offer some perspective on the proposal. In a 2017 study on the Dunkirk case, Alexandre Mayol, lecturer in economics at the University of Lorraine, calculates that “the introduction of a progressive tariff decreases overall consumption across the entire service” by 9% . Even if, taking advantage of the fall in prices, the smallest consumers have increased their consumption.
The finances of water services must be balanced. The drop in tariffs on the first bands must therefore be compensated by the “comfort” band, that is to say by the biggest consumers. However, the increase in the bill should only affect a minority of the population. In Dunkirk, after 10 years of experimentation, 80% of households have seen theirs drop, provides the water service to Reporterre. In Montpellier, it is estimated that the measure will benefit “70% to 75% of individual meter subscribers”.
The measure desired by Emmanuel Macron could however have some perverse effects, in particular because consumption is calculated by household, and it is still impossible for water services to differentiate the calculation according to its size. A large family, heavy consumer in spite of itself, will be more penalized than a person living alone or a childless couple.
For example, with the levels proposed by the National Assembly’s flash mission, a family of four who consume on average would barely reach the “comfort” water level for their billing. A single person, on the other hand, could consume one and a half times more than the average before even passing the first level of “essential” water at symbolic cost. MEPs thus stress that this measure must be accompanied by measures or aid to correct this bias.
As for people whose building is only equipped with a collective meter, the individual effort is not immediately visible on the bill and is therefore not really encouraged. It is possible to equip each household with an individual meter, but the operation has a significant cost for the water services.
Finally, if progressive pricing has a symbolic significance that invites awareness, it risks having little effect on those who have the means to pay for excessive water consumption and reinforce the perception of unequal access to this vital common good that is sometimes lacking. However, recalls the water information center, “the higher the standard of living, the more the use of water increases”.
