WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
Tracking would be tricky, honestly. Comparing to last year’s bill could get messy if your household size or habits changed—like, if you had guests for a month, suddenly you look like a water hog. Smart meters seem more precise, but then you’re dealing with privacy and tech costs. I’d want to see clear data on how they’d normalize for weather, occupancy, leaks, etc., before trusting any incentive system.
As for fixtures, yeah, I’ve had mixed results. Swapped out a “high-efficiency” toilet that actually needed two flushes half the time, so it ended up using more water than the old one. The showerhead I got was decent, but the bathroom faucet was so stingy it took forever to wash my hands. I ended up drilling out the flow restrictor, which kind of defeated the point.
If cities want us to save water, they should focus on making the process as painless as possible. Streamlined rebates (or just upfront discounts), clear standards for what counts as “less,” and maybe even a list of fixtures that have been tested for real-world performance—not just lab numbers. Otherwise, people are just going to get frustrated and work around the restrictions.
I’m all for saving money, but only if it doesn’t make daily life annoying or unpredictable.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
- Been through a few city rebate programs with clients, and honestly, the tracking is always the headache. One family had a new baby mid-year and their “usage spike” got flagged, even though it was just more laundry and bottles. Not exactly fair.
- Smart meters are great in theory. But I’ve seen them glitch or misreport, especially if there’s old plumbing or weird pressure issues. Plus, some folks get weirded out by the idea of their water use being tracked in real time.
- Fixture swaps are hit or miss. Installed a bunch of “ultra-low flow” toilets in a new build last year—half the homeowners called me back because they needed two flushes for anything more than tissue. Ended up swapping a few for models that use a bit more water but actually work.
- Showerheads are usually less drama, but faucets? Some of those restrictors are just silly. Had one client who literally took pliers to his kitchen faucet after getting frustrated trying to fill a pot.
- I do like the idea of upfront discounts instead of rebates. Most people don’t want to mess with paperwork or wait months for $50 back.
- Real-world testing matters way more than lab numbers. If cities want buy-in, they should partner with builders and homeowners to test stuff in actual homes—not just controlled environments.
- One thing I’d add: leaks can kill your numbers and you might not even know it until you get dinged on your bill. Had a slow slab leak at my own place once... barely noticed until the water bill doubled.
I’m all for saving water (and money), but if it means fighting with fixtures or getting penalized for things out of your control, people will just find workarounds or ignore the program altogether. It’s gotta be practical and not make daily life harder than it needs to be.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
Totally agree about the rebate paperwork—nobody wants to deal with that. I’ve seen clients get excited about new fixtures, only to hate them after a week because they’re too restrictive or just plain annoying. If cities want people to actually use these things, they need to make sure they work in real homes, not just on paper. And yeah, leaks are sneaky... had a client with a tiny drip behind a wall that messed up their whole “water-saving” plan. It’s gotta be practical or folks will just bypass the whole thing.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
- Not sure it’s always the fixture’s fault when people don’t like water-saving stuff. A lot of times, it comes down to installation or just plain old habits that are tough to break.
- I’ve seen clients swear off low-flow showerheads, but then admit later they just never gave them a real shot. Some of those newer models actually feel pretty decent—if you’re not expecting a firehose, anyway.
- The rebate paperwork is a pain, agreed. But if cities made the process automatic or tied it to your utility bill, maybe more folks would jump in.
- About leaks—yeah, they’re a killer. But honestly, regular maintenance gets ignored until there’s water everywhere. Maybe cities should focus on free leak detection or inspections along with incentives.
- Sometimes I wonder if the “annoying” part is more about change than the product itself... people get used to one thing and anything different feels wrong at first.
- All that said, if you’re going to mess with someone’s daily routine (like their shower), the design better be solid or you’re just asking for complaints.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
Design does matter, but you’re right—installation and user habits are a huge part of it. I’ve seen people blame the fixtures when it’s really a lousy install or just not knowing how to use the new stuff. If cities want real results, they should streamline rebates and throw in free leak checks. Most folks won’t bother otherwise. And yeah, changing routines is tough, but if you make the switch painless, most people adapt.
