Honestly, spending a bit more upfront on a quality fixture saved me from dealing with clogs and awkward conversations later.
Man, I hear you. I’ve seen so many new builds where they went cheap on the fixtures just to save a buck, and it always comes back to bite them. When we did a multi-unit project last year, we actually tested out a few different toilets before settling—never thought I’d have opinions about flush power, but here we are. If the city’s gonna pay folks to use less water, it only makes sense to invest in stuff that actually works, right? Otherwise you’re just flushing money (and time) down the drain...
Honestly, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to explain to clients why their “budget” fixtures are causing headaches. You get what you pay for. We swapped out a whole batch of cheap faucets once—cost more in labor than just buying decent ones from the start. If the city’s offering rebates or incentives, it’s a no-brainer to go for quality. Otherwise, you’re just setting yourself up for callbacks and complaints down the road.
WHAT’S THE POINT OF “SAVING” IF YOU’RE JUST PAYING FOR REPAIRS?
“We swapped out a whole batch of cheap faucets once—cost more in labor than just buying decent ones from the start.”
Couldn’t agree more with this. I learned the hard way, too—thought I was being clever grabbing those “bargain” showerheads during a home improvement sale. Two of them started leaking within a year, and the third literally snapped off at the threads. Ended up paying a plumber to redo the whole thing, and by then, any “savings” were long gone. Sometimes I wonder if these rebates or incentives are even worth it if people just go for the cheapest option to tick the box.
But here’s where I’m a bit torn: I get why folks want to save upfront, especially with how pricey everything’s gotten lately. Not everyone has the cash to drop on top-tier fixtures, even with a rebate. But then again, if you’re going to go through the hassle of replacing stuff, why not do it right? The callbacks and complaints aren’t just a contractor’s headache—they’re a homeowner’s nightmare, too. Nothing like waking up to a puddle under the sink because your “budget” faucet gave up.
I do think cities could do a better job making it clear that quality matters, not just water savings. Maybe require certain brands or minimum standards for rebate eligibility? Otherwise, people are just going to chase the lowest price and end up frustrated.
Anyway, I’m with you—if you’re getting paid to use less water, it only makes sense to invest in something that’ll actually last. Otherwise, you’re just trading one problem for another.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
Yeah, I’ve seen this play out so many times on projects—clients want to take advantage of rebates, but end up picking fixtures that look fine on paper and then start failing within months. Honestly, it’s not just about the brand, either. Even reputable companies have “builder grade” versions that don’t hold up. I wish cities would set more specific durability standards, not just water flow rates. And honestly, sometimes spending a bit more upfront on a solid mid-range fixture saves so much trouble down the line... nobody wants to deal with emergency repairs just because a handle snapped off.
I wish cities would set more specific durability standards, not just water flow rates.
Couldn’t agree more. I’ve seen “water-saving” faucets that barely last a year before something cracks or leaks. It’s wild how often people forget that cheaping out on fixtures just means you’re paying twice—once now, and again when you’re calling a plumber at 10pm. Sometimes the rebate isn’t worth the headache if you’re replacing stuff constantly.
