Otherwise, the biggest users just get paid for cutting back from excess... doesn’t seem fair.
But if someone’s got a big property and actually makes big changes—like ripping out a ton of grass or adding efficient irrigation—that does save way more water overall. Isn’t that the main goal? I get not wanting to “reward” high use, but the impact matters too.
I get that, but what about folks who already use water efficiently? If the city only pays for big reductions, people who've been careful all along get nothing. Should there be a baseline or tiered system to make it fairer?
That’s a fair point. I’ve seen this come up with energy rebates too—folks who already invested in efficient systems get left out. A tiered system could work, but then you get into the weeds of how to set those baselines. Who decides what’s “efficient enough”? And what about new builds versus older homes—should they be judged by the same standard? Curious if anyone’s city has actually tried something like this and how it played out.
Title: What if your city paid you to use less water?
- I get the frustration—spent a fortune on low-flow everything, and now rebates go to folks who haven’t bothered yet.
- Baselines are tricky. My last house was new, super efficient, but my neighbor’s 1950s place was a water hog even after upgrades.
- Shouldn’t there be different standards for new builds vs. older homes? Otherwise, it feels like punishing early adopters.
- Has anyone seen a system that actually rewards people who already invested upfront? Or is it always about “improvement” over time?
Title: What if your city paid you to use less water?
I’ve run into this same issue with clients who built efficient homes from the start. They’re already at rock-bottom usage, so there’s not much “improvement” left to chase. Meanwhile, someone with an older house can swap out a couple toilets and suddenly qualify for a rebate or incentive. It does feel a bit backwards.
If I break it down, most city programs seem to focus on percentage reduction from a baseline, not absolute efficiency. That’s great for motivating change, but it doesn’t really acknowledge folks who made the investment upfront. I get why—it’s easier to measure improvement than to compare everyone’s starting point, especially when houses are so different. But it’s not exactly fair.
One idea I’ve seen tossed around is tiered incentives. For example, you’d get a one-time bonus for hitting a certain low usage threshold, regardless of how you got there. After that, maybe you’re eligible for smaller ongoing credits just for maintaining that level. It’s not perfect, but it at least recognizes early adopters.
Curious if anyone’s city actually does something like that? Or maybe there’s a way to set baselines based on home age or square footage, so you’re not penalized for living in a newer place. I wonder if there’s a practical way to balance rewarding both improvement and absolute efficiency, or if it just gets too complicated to manage.
Has anyone tried to appeal their city’s program or suggest changes? I’ve heard mixed results, but maybe there’s a workaround I haven’t thought of.