Prepaid water meters (where users pay before using water) are part of smart water management and have sparked various controversies during their promotion, covering multiple aspects such as concepts, technology, and management. The following is an analysis of the main points of contention:
I. Conceptual Disputes
1. Issues of Water Rights and Equity
Opposing view: Water is a basic resource for life. The prepaid model may result in low-income families being cut off from water supply due to inability to prepay, violating the principle of “equal water rights”.
Supporting viewpoint: Through tiered water pricing and subsidy policies (such as exemptions for low-income households), fairness can be balanced, and prepaid systems can cultivate water conservation awareness.
2. Weakening of public service attributes
The traditional post-payment system embodies public service attributes, while the prepaid model has been criticized as “commercializing” water resources, which may weaken the government’s responsibility for ensuring basic livelihoods.
3. User trust crisis
Some users believe that prepaid systems are a means for water companies to transfer risks (such as leakage and meter reading costs), and they have doubts about data transparency (such as balance reminders, fault response).
II. Technical Disputes
1. Measurement Accuracy
Issue: Poor water quality (such as impurities, scale formation) or fluctuations in water pressure may affect the accuracy of the sensor, leading to measurement errors and causing disputes.
Case: Users in certain areas complained that the water meters were “running too fast”, but the test results were in line with the national standard (such as JJG 162-2019), making the dispute difficult to resolve.
2. System Reliability and Cybersecurity
Smart water meters relying on IoT technology are vulnerable to hacker attacks (such as data tampering, malicious water cut-off) or system downtime risks, and require high-cost maintenance.
During the renovation of old residential areas, the wireless communication module may fail to transmit data due to poor signal coverage.
3. Inconsistent technical standards
The compatibility of devices from different manufacturers is poor, and the data interfaces and communication protocols (such as NB-IoT and LoRa) are fragmented, which increases the management difficulty.
III. Managing Disputes
1. Ambiguous Liability Boundary
Fault Responsibility: In cases where water supply is interrupted due to water meter damage or system errors, the division of responsibilities among the water company, the property management, and the user is unclear.
Data Access Rights: There is a lack of clear legal regulations defining the ownership of water usage data (privacy of users vs. management rights of the water company).
2. Lack of emergency response mechanism
Under the prepaid model, sudden water supply disruptions (such as insufficient recharge of the balance) may affect critical places like hospitals and schools. An emergency water supply plan needs to be established, but the implementation cost is high.
3. Cost Allocation Conflict
Installation and maintenance costs: The unit price of intelligent water meters is relatively high (approximately 200 – 500 yuan per unit), and these costs may be passed on to users through water prices, which could lead to resistance.
Long-term benefit dispute: The water company claims to reduce the cost of manual meter reading, but users question whether the water-saving effect is significant.
4. Resistance to Policy Implementation
In some areas, the mandatory promotion of prepaid water meters has been criticized as “one-size-fits-all”, lacking public participation and public hearing procedures, which is likely to trigger public protests.Data Access Rights: There is a lack of clear legal regulations defining the ownership of water usage data (user privacy vs. the management rights of the water company).
IV. International Comparisons and Case References
Europe: Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands tend to adopt the post-payment + high late fee model, believing that prepaid payment might infringe upon human rights.
Developing countries: South Africa and India once sparked social movements due to prepaid water meters, protesting against “water poverty”.
Chinese-style approach: Cities like Beijing have gradually promoted this through “government subsidies + voluntary replacement”, but in rural areas, the promotion is difficult due to the aging water supply networks.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding prepaid water meters essentially revolves around the trade-offs between efficiency, fairness, and technical reliability. To resolve the conflicts in the future, the following measures should be taken:
1. Improve regulations: Establish clear technical standards, data access rights, and emergency responsibilities.
2. Promote transparency: Make public the calibration records of the meters and provide multiple channels for balance alerts.
3. Implement flexible policies: Offer the option of post-payment for specific groups (such as elderly people living alone).
4. Enhance technological innovation: Improve the sensor’s anti-interference capability and reduce the failure rate.
Only by taking into account both technical feasibility and humanistic care can the sustainable optimization of water resource management be achieved.