Bolognola – San Ginesio

Q1. Country name:

ITALY

Q2. Partner name:

A.ATO 3 MARCHE CENTRO – MACERATA

Q3. Partner – Final Beneficiary No.:

FB 2

Q4. Between country – water coming from (origin country (1)) and

ATO 3 (Bolognola)

Q5. Country (2) – water supplied to (delivered):

and ATO 4 (San Ginesio)

Q6. Water supply system name (English):

Fargno Main

Q7. Water supply system name (Country 1):

Acquedotto del Fargno

Q8. Water supply system name (Country 2):

Acquedotto del Fargno

Q9. Date/year established cross-border water supply:

TO BE IMPLEMENTED

Q10. Management of origin side of the WSS:

TENNACOLA Spa

Q11. Management of delivery side of the WSS:

TENNACOLA Spa

Q12. Amount of water supplied (as per contract/agreement):

TO BE IMPLEMENTED

Q13. General nature of the CBWS – emergency water supply, peak water supply, permanent water supply:

Permanent water supply

Q14. Existing legal framework for the CBWS:

YES – Regional Law n. 30, as of 28 December 2011 (former Regional Law n. 18, as of 22 June 1998)

Q15. Top level CBWS management body (if mutually defined):

Marche Region (Regione Marche)

Q16. Origin country reference body for the management body:

Optimal Territorial Area Authority n. 3 Marche Centro – Macerata (A.ATO 3)

Q17. Delivery country reference body for the CBWS management body.

Optimal Territorial Area Authority n. 4 Marche Centro – Sud Fermano e Maceratese (A.ATO 4)

Q18. Legal framework management – Contract party meetings (annual, even more frequent):

YES – occasional meetings

Q19. Issues addressed on the local level:

ATO Authorities are responsible for the organization of water delivery and water transfer from an ATO to another, considering environmental protection and water balance issues.

Q20. Issues addressed on the regional level:

Regional Governemnt role is that to assent the agreement between the parties, also considering Regional River Basin Authority opinion

Q21. Issues addressed on the state level:

Not Applicable

Q22. Legal option to increase maximum annual entitlement?

TO BE IMPLEMENTED

Q23. Minimum amount of water delivery defined?

TO BE IMPLEMENTED

Q24. Which is the body assigned by the contract for the resolution of disputes?

/

Q25. Ownership of the cross-border infrastructure:

/

Q26. Are the water rights on the water resource assigned to the cross-border partner? In which way?

/

Q27. Termination of the water delivery of contract

/

Q28 Minimal water consumption legally defined?

YES – 60 l/s

Q29. Is the legal heritage of the systems resolved

/

Q30. Is the water price(charge) composed by different components?

NO – according to the existing contract water price is set by A.ATO 4 every year.
The price per cubic meter was updated to 0,180189 eur (2005, Del. A.ATO 4 17/12/2004), then to 0,246862 (2010, Del. A.ATO 4 12/12/2009), then to 0,261674 eur (2011, Del. A.ATO 4 22/12/2010), then to 0,278683 (2012), then to 0,2873 (2013).
During 01/02/2011 meeting A.ATO 3 proposed to determine the charge based on abstraction, treatment, transportation and distribution direct costs, also considering infrastructure depreciation. Administration, financial and extra costs would not be included, in order to define a “industrial average unitary cost” per cubic meter of water delivered to the sub-distributor.

Q31. How is the pricing mechanism defined (water charges):

/

Q32. Are the minimal charges foreseen? – Fixed charges, full for empty:

/

Q33. Is the non-payment procedure regulated by the contract?

/

Q34. Is there a special tariff (surcharge) for the excessive water supply?

/

Q35. Insurance cost covered – insurance cost tariff, insurance model foreseen by the contract:

/

Q36. Depreciaton of the infrastructure, investment/maintenance plans agreed ? (amortizacija, ammortamento):

/

Q37. Penalties for unfulfilment of contractual obligations?

/

Q38. Is the mutual inspection of records/book-keeping established? (due dilligence approach):

/

Q39. General assessment of the CBWS economics :

/

Q40. Payment statistics for the last 5 years:

/

Q41. Other:

/

Q42. Measurement of water delivered:

/

Q43. Is continuity of water supply – intermittent water supply an issue?

/

Q44. Agreed water quality issues:

/

Q45. Water quality monitoring jointly controlled/verified:

/

Q46. Temperature regulated by the contract?

/

Q47. Pressure regulated by the contract?

/

Q48. Cross – border profile management:

/

Q49. Construction of project facilities:

/

Q50. Is the daily dynamics of water demand/supply an issue ?

/

Q51. Is the seasonal dynamics of water demand/supply an issue ?

/

Q52. Management of water losses – are water losses in the supply, uptake side an issue?

/

Q53. Is the water availability/demand an issue on supply country or demand country side?

/

Q54. Transitional phenomena an issue?

/

Q55. Other technical issues?

/

Q56. Long term planning mechanisms established?

/

Q57. LIASON OFFICERS DETERMINED? Communication process determined and functioning?

/

Q58. Joint supervision of the Water Supply System?

/

Q59. Joint management of the water resource?

/

Q60. Contingency plans existing?

/

Q61. Main problems identified:

/

Q62. Other comments:

/

Q63. Vision:

/

Q64. Do you consider that the legal framework for the CB WSS is adequate, or under-defined:

/

Q65. Do you consider that the economic framework for the CB WS is adequate, or under-defined:

/

Q66. Do you consider that the technical framework for the CB WS is adequate, or under-defined:

/

Q67. How would you assess general perception of the cross border water supply in public?

/

Q68. Provide in the attachment shp file of the existing water supply network:

/

Q69. Provide documents on general state-level framework for the cross-border water supply:

/

Q70. Specific delivery contract:

/

Q71. Regulations, technical documentation:

/

Q72. Statistics on the water supplied and payments provided for the last five years:

/