- Not sure everyone’s sold on the long-term savings.
- Some folks I’ve worked with just want the rebate and a quick fix, but others really do care about ongoing costs.
- Honestly, I’ve seen people rip out xeriscaping after a few years because they missed their lawns.
- Tastes shift, but sometimes incentives only go so far...
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
I get the skepticism. I’ve seen plenty of projects where people jump at the rebate, swap out their lawns for gravel or native plants, and then a few years later, they’re frustrated with the look or the maintenance and just go back to turf. It’s not always about the money—sometimes it’s just about what feels like “home” to them.
But here’s the thing: incentives alone won’t change habits long-term if people don’t actually like the result. I’ve worked on developments where we tried to push drought-tolerant landscaping, and honestly, unless folks are genuinely invested in the idea, it doesn’t stick. The up-front savings are nice, but if you hate your yard every time you look at it, that rebate isn’t going to matter much.
Maybe cities should focus less on one-size-fits-all rebates and more on helping people find water-wise options they actually enjoy living with. There’s a lot of creative stuff out there now—rain gardens, permeable patios, even some pretty wild native plant mixes that don’t look like a pile of rocks. If people can see themselves in those spaces, maybe the savings will actually last.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
Totally agree that just throwing money at the problem isn’t enough. I’ve seen neighbors rip out their lawns for rebates, then complain about how “dead” their yards look. Maybe if cities offered workshops or demo gardens, people could see how cool native landscaping can actually look. It’s not all gravel and cacti—some of it’s really vibrant.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
I’ve watched this play out in my own neighborhood—people take the rebate, yank out their grass, and then just sort of… stop. Suddenly it’s a patch of rocks or mulch, and yeah, it looks pretty bleak. I think there’s this misconception that “drought-tolerant” means boring or colorless, but honestly, some of the most striking yards I’ve seen use native plants. There’s a house down the street from me with a mix of purple sage, yarrow, and some kind of ornamental grass—when it blooms, it’s wild how much life it brings to the block.
It’s kind of like interior design: you can’t just remove something and expect the space to feel finished. You need to think about texture, color, even how things change with the seasons. Maybe cities could partner with local designers or gardeners to show people what’s possible? Money helps, but inspiration goes a long way too.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
Maybe cities could partner with local designers or gardeners to show people what’s possible? Money helps, but inspiration goes a long way too.
I get what you’re saying about inspiration, but honestly, I’m just looking at the bottom line most of the time. If the city’s paying me to rip out my grass, I’m thinking: how much is this going to cost me up front, and how long till I actually see savings? Native plants sound cool, but are they expensive to buy and maintain? And who’s got time to figure out which ones won’t just die in a month?
I’ve seen those “rock gardens” pop up too—some look like someone just dumped gravel and called it a day. Not exactly curb appeal. If the city wants people to go beyond mulch and rocks, maybe they should throw in a starter kit or something? Or at least make it easy to get cheap plants that don’t need a ton of water or babysitting. Otherwise, I feel like most folks will just take the rebate and do the bare minimum... which, yeah, ends up looking pretty bleak.
