Water pipeline excessively long on a public street - costs?

I'll attach the statutes!

Everything is said with §4 (2) + (3) and §6.

But a supply line exists in the village.

Yes, in the village, but not in immediate proximity to your property.

We only need an unusually long house connection.

No. You need 40 m of supply line (over public ground) and 50 m of house connection line. Without a supply line, no house connection.

But why do we have to bear the costs that for every other connection are covered by the supplier?

Without knowing the concrete circumstances on site: Because these were/are accessible through a supply line in immediate proximity? Also: §8.

I think that the public should not always have to pay for everything. So this justifies passing on the costs.

I think it is good if basic supply services are subject to a principle of solidarity – in this case everyone pays a flat rate, which is based on a mixed calculation.

The statutes state that the costs on public land are borne by the water supplier.

Accordingly, the water supplier should have no problem making a loss on your connection, because with an underlying mixed calculation he makes the corresponding profit with enough other connections.

I only expect that with us it is done as with all other properties: the public part is borne by the water supplier, the pipe on the private property is borne by us. What would be unfair about that?

I would share this expectation in your case for the house connection pipe, but not for a possibly necessary new supply pipe – this would not be covered by a flat rate. As already says, this is the decisive point.

Since the location is a very small village in the Franconian Switzerland, there is only one supply line running through it, from which all water connections branch off directly.

Why should a new supply line be assumed in our case and not a house connection? I do not understand that.

According to the definition in the statute, supply lines are "the water pipes in the water supply area, from which the property connections branch off."

and further:

"House connections are the water pipes from the branching point of the supply line to the transfer point."

From my point of view, it is about a long house connection. Of course, we will also bear the additional costs as required in the statute! But I simply cannot understand a blanket passing on of all costs.

We have written to the water supplier today and are looking forward to the response!

Why should we assume a new supply line and not a house connection in our case?

Regulations, accounting issues, investment costs and revenue subsidies in municipal generation and distribution, different rules and regulations regarding house connection and supply lines... The list can be extended indefinitely. Just because you are the last contractor does not mean that the entire length of the line up to the previous contractor is your house connection line... although I also find it difficult to see where you want to generate an advantage for yourself based on this argumentation.

Thank you for your assessments. Can someone tell me if it is possible to connect an additional house connection (with an extra valve) to an existing water connection? My wife’s brother is our direct neighbor (the property was recently divided between my wife and her brother) and would allow this. This would save us the costs of digging up the street. However, the water supplier claims that, for legal reasons, each house needs its own water connection to the supply line. But there is nothing about this in the statutes. Does anyone know the current legal situation regarding this?

I can only say how it was with my parents. They had a shared connection with the neighbor for many years, which could only be shut off together during repairs. During the road renovation, this was separated with relatively considerable effort, as this is no longer permissible. However, there were no costs for them because the supplier is responsible up to the water meter.