In recent days, netizens have reported that the residents of the town of lokyo in yichuan district, jiangxi chuzhou, are required to pay a “minimum consumption” of $96, equivalent to 5 tons per month, even if they are absent for a long time. Subsequently, the market supervisory authority of the yichuan district of chuzhou city issued a circular stating that, following initial verification, the water plant had been established for the purpose of establishing a new water plant for zoro, and that the water plant had been charged an additional 2 tons of basic water per month, that it had been charged with the immediate cessation of non-compliance with the charges, that the next step would be to verify the number and amount of non-compliance charges and that they would be dealt with in accordance with the law。
It was found that the iyrca had issued a circular on the establishment of rural water prices in iyt in 2020, which specified that the basic water quantity would not exceed 3 tonnes per month and that more than 3 tonnes would be charged for actual water use, i. E., 3 tonnes of “basic water”. The events are now cause for concern that, in addition to the “unfairness” proposed by local workers, the original “minimum consumption” has been increased by two tons, giving the audience a sense of a constant “nozzle” from the population in silence by water companies。
Nor was the dispute over “feed water” the first time. In september 2023, for example, the village of changichi, henan, was called into question and the locals said that they could apply for a stop; in april this year, residents of anhui huai nan cai said that uninhabited houses were required to pay about $16 a month for bottom water; and again in april this year, a water company in shanghai county, guangxi nanning city, was sentenced to almost $190,000 for having imposed a monopoly on bottom water charges. As can be seen from the above-mentioned cases relating to “basket water” charges, there is a situation where “basket water” charges exist in one place and this inevitably raises public questions。
Indeed, the existence of “basket water” is not incomprehensible. In some places, especially in rural areas with small populations, the construction and operation of piped water costs are not low, the water supply is relatively complex and so-called “minimum consumption” requirements do exist. Villagers are also not incomprehensible about the difficulty of running water plants, and it is “compulsory consumption” that makes people sick. Therefore, the basis and criteria for the “feasibility” fee need to be determined on a case-by-case and local policy basis to ensure fairness and reasonableness in order to establish a more reasonable, equitable and transparent mechanism for charging, thus avoiding controversial phenomena such as “minimum consumption”. (journalist, yellow game)
