WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
I hear you on the fluctuations. I’ve seen it firsthand—built a place for a family last year, and their water usage shot up just because they put in new sod. They’d have looked like water hogs if you just glanced at the numbers, but really, it was a one-time thing. Automatic credits sound nice, but real life’s messier than that. Maybe some kind of hybrid system would work better... less paperwork, but still a way to flag weird spikes.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
That’s a good point about the new sod—landscaping projects can really throw off the numbers for a while. I’ve seen similar stuff with renovations where people have to use more water for a bit, then it drops back down. Maybe if the city had a way to “pause” the incentive during those periods? Or let you flag it ahead of time, like, “Hey, I’m putting in a garden this month.” Otherwise, folks might get penalized for just improving their property. The hybrid idea sounds promising, but I wonder how much admin work it’d actually save...
- Totally agree on the landscaping issue—
That’d be a game-changer for anyone doing upgrades.“Maybe if the city had a way to ‘pause’ the incentive during those periods?”
- I’ve had to fill a new pool before, and the spike was wild. Would hate to get dinged for that when it’s a one-time thing.
- Wondering if cities could use permits as a trigger? Like, if you pull a permit for major work, it auto-pauses your water incentive.
- Curious if anyone’s city actually does this already, or is it all just theory at this point?
“Maybe if the city had a way to ‘pause’ the incentive during those periods?”
That’s a solid idea, but I’m not convinced cities are set up for that kind of flexibility yet. When I redid my front yard, my water use shot up for a month—new plants, extra irrigation, the whole deal. Would’ve been frustrating to lose out on an incentive because of something that’s actually making things more sustainable long-term. Permits as a trigger makes sense in theory, but I haven’t seen it in practice anywhere. Most places just seem to have blanket rules and hope for the best.
“Would’ve been frustrating to lose out on an incentive because of something that’s actually making things more sustainable long-term.”
That’s exactly the dilemma, isn’t it? The system should reward the bigger picture, not just short-term numbers. I’ve seen similar issues with energy rebates—sometimes the rules just can’t keep up with real-life projects. It’d be great if cities could adapt, but I get why it’s tricky.
