Wonder if folks would go all-in if the payout was big enough, or if most would just do the bare minimum like I did... anyone else torn between saving cash and keeping a bit of green?
I get what you mean. I’ve been wrestling with the same thing since we started building our place. I love the idea of a wildflower yard—less mowing, more bees—but there’s something about a patch of grass that just feels right, especially for kids or pets. We ended up doing a mix: native grasses in the front, regular lawn in the back for the kids’ soccer games.
If the city upped the rebate, I’d probably convert more, but honestly, there’s always that “what if I want to use the yard differently later?” feeling. Plus, some folks just like the look of a classic lawn, no matter the payout. I think most people will do just enough to get the rebate unless it’s a really big chunk of change. At least with wildflowers, you get some color and less hassle with sprinklers... but yeah, it’s a trade-off.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
I totally get the “what if I want to use the yard differently later” thing. We just finished our first spring in the new house, and I’m already second-guessing every landscaping choice. Part of me wants to rip out all the thirsty grass and go full-on native, but then I picture summer BBQs or a dog tearing around and... yeah, not so sure. If the city rebate was huge, I’d probably be tempted, but honestly, I think most folks (me included) would still want at least a patch of lawn for old times’ sake. There’s just something about it, even if it’s a pain to keep green.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
- Totally get the nostalgia for a patch of grass.
- But, from a design angle, native landscaping can look amazing and still leave space for BBQs or pets.
- Rebates are tempting, but I’d worry about resale value if the next owner wants a traditional lawn.
- Maybe a hybrid approach? Keep a small lawn, go native everywhere else.
- Curious if anyone’s city actually offers enough money to make it worth the hassle...
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
I get the appeal of rebates, but honestly, the numbers rarely add up when you factor in the upfront cost and ongoing maintenance of redoing a whole yard. Native landscaping can look great, sure, but buyers in my experience still expect at least some green lawn, especially in certain neighborhoods. I’ve seen projects where people went all-in on drought-tolerant plants, only to have to rip it out later because it hurt the home’s curb appeal. Maybe the hybrid idea is the safest bet, but I’m not convinced the city’s payout ever really covers the hassle.
WHAT IF YOUR CITY PAID YOU TO USE LESS WATER?
I get where you’re coming from. When we built our place last year, the city was pushing hard for those rebates, but after crunching the numbers, it just didn’t make sense for us to rip out the whole lawn. We did a mix—kept a small patch of grass for the dog and swapped the rest for some low-water shrubs and gravel. Honestly, it was still a pain to get everything established, and the rebate barely covered the cost of the plants, let alone the labor.
I hear you on the curb appeal thing too. Our neighbors definitely side-eyed the “rock garden” at first. Now it’s grown in a bit, and people seem to like it, but I still wonder if we’d have to redo it if we ever sold. The payout is nice in theory, but unless you’re already planning a yard overhaul, it’s not exactly a windfall. Still, I guess every little bit helps with the water bill...
