When we built our place, I was all about water-saving stuff—dual flush toilets, rain barrels, the works. But honestly, if I wasn’t seeing the water bill myself, I probably wouldn’t care as much either. It’s easy to forget about those things if you’re not directly paying for them. I wonder if cities ever try splitting the incentive between landlords and tenants? Otherwise, in rentals, it feels like no one’s really motivated.
I’ve noticed the same thing in a lot of rentals—if tenants aren’t footing the bill, water-saving just isn’t top of mind. I’ve worked with clients who wanted to install low-flow fixtures, but then realized their renters didn’t really care since utilities were included. It’s a tricky balance.
One thing I’ve wondered: what if cities offered rebates or credits that could be split between landlords and tenants? Like, if you install efficient appliances or cut usage, both parties get a little something. Maybe even a points system that could go toward rent discounts or city services? I’m not sure how practical that is, but it seems like it’d motivate everyone to pay attention.
Has anyone seen a city actually try something like this? Or maybe there are smaller-scale programs out there I haven’t heard about... Sometimes I think the design choices we make only go so far if the people living there aren’t invested.
Sometimes I think the design choices we make only go so far if the people living there aren’t invested.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying, but honestly, I’m not sure paying people is the answer either. Like, I rent and keep a pretty close eye on my utility usage anyway, just because I hate waste. But if someone’s not already motivated, I kinda doubt a handful of credits or a few bucks off rent is gonna change their habits much? Maybe I’m being a bit cynical, but it feels like those programs end up being more paperwork than they’re worth.
I do think there’s something to be said for just making the efficient stuff standard—like, if every faucet and toilet is low-flow, it doesn’t matter so much whether people care or not. You get the savings either way. I know it’s a pain up front for landlords, but long run, it saves everyone a headache. My last place swapped everything out (without asking, lol) and honestly, I barely noticed except the shower took a little longer to warm up.
I totally get the point about just making efficient stuff the default—honestly, that seems like the only way to guarantee real change. But I keep wondering, what happens in those high-end homes where people want their rain showers and giant tubs? Would people actually accept limits on luxury features if cities started mandating stricter water standards? Or would folks just find ways around it? I mean, is there a line between encouraging conservation and killing off the things people love about their homes?
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
Yeah, I totally see what you mean about people loving their big showers and tubs. I mean, who doesn’t want to feel a little fancy sometimes? But honestly, if cities really started pushing for stricter water rules, I think folks with the money would just find ways to get around it. Like, they’d probably install whatever’s required for inspections, then swap it out for the high-flow stuff after. Or maybe even pay fines if it means keeping their luxuries.
On the other hand, for people like me who are just trying to keep bills down, efficient stuff is a no-brainer. If the city actually paid us to use less water? Sign me up. I’d swap out every faucet in my place if it meant a little extra cash in my pocket each month.
I do get nervous about the idea of taking away all the “nice” features though. There’s gotta be some middle ground where you can still have a decent shower but not waste a ton of water. Maybe tech will catch up and make those luxury things more efficient anyway... wouldn’t mind that at all.