Water and wastewater tariffs have increased significantly in the Romanian city of Iași, prompting a strong reaction from local authorities. The Iași City Hall has formally asked the regional water operator to roll back the price increases introduced on January 1, warning that it may challenge the decision in court after household bills for drinking water and sewage rose by approximately 15%.

The combined tariff for water supply and wastewater services has reached over 23 lei per cubic meter (excluding VAT), placing Iași among the cities with the highest water prices in Romania.

Municipal officials argue that the increase has not been sufficiently justified and that its impact on residents is substantial, especially against the backdrop of the rising cost of living.

A stark contrast with Bucharest

By comparison, in Bucharest, the tariff for drinking water and wastewater services is around 10–11 lei per cubic meter (excluding VAT)—less than half the level charged in Iași.

Romania’s capital consistently ranks among the cities with the lowest water tariffs in the country, despite serving the largest urban population and operating one of the most extensive water distribution networks nationwide.

The discrepancy raises questions not only about cost structures, but also about how utility services are organized and managed.

Private operator in Bucharest, public operator in Iași

A key difference between the two cities lies in the operational model of their water services.

In Bucharest, water supply is provided by Apa Nova București, a private operator owned by the French group Veolia. The company operates the network under a long-term concession contract with the Bucharest City Hall. Under this model, the private operator is responsible for investments, maintenance, and performance, with costs recovered through regulated tariffs.

In Iași, water services are provided by APAVITAL, a publicly owned regional operator controlled by the Iași County Council and the local municipalities it serves.

This structural difference matters because:

• private operators have commercial incentives to reduce losses, improve efficiency, and optimize operating costs;
• public operators manage large-scale infrastructure investments—many financed through European funds—while operating, maintenance, and depreciation costs are reflected directly in consumer tariffs.

Utility sector experts note that ownership structure alone does not automatically determine tariff levels. Instead, operational efficiency, population density, and the scale and structure of investments play a decisive role in shaping final prices.

Large investments, higher bills

Regional water operators across Romania generally argue that tariff increases are necessary to fund:

• modernization of aging networks,
• reduction of water losses,
• compliance with European water quality and environmental standards.

In many counties, these investments are carried out through EU-funded programs. However, local co-financing, operating expenses, and long-term maintenance costs are ultimately passed on to consumers through tariffs.

Critics of the system warn that in some regions, administrative inefficiencies and high operating costs can amplify the financial burden on households without leading to proportional improvements in service quality.

Administrative dispute and possible legal action

Iași City Hall has announced that it is considering challenging the tariff increase in court, citing a lack of transparency in the pricing methodology and the social impact on residents.

If the dispute reaches the courts, the case could set an important precedent regarding the extent to which local authorities can intervene in the tariff-setting policies of regional utility operators.

A national issue, not just a local one

The situation in Iași highlights a broader national issue: water tariffs vary widely across Romania, with residents in some regions paying more than twice as much as those in major urban centers.

In the absence of national balancing mechanisms and uniform efficiency standards, the cost of infrastructure modernization is borne unevenly by consumers, depending largely on where they live.

Also recommended “The ‘rainwater fee,’ regulated for over three decades: what it represents and why it exists