If the city wants real participation, make it as easy as possible.
Couldn’t agree more. When I remodeled my bathroom, the rebate paperwork for a low-flow showerhead was ridiculous—took longer than the install. I’m curious though: has anyone actually seen a city partner directly with luxury appliance brands? I’d love to see incentives for high-end fixtures that still save water, but it always seems geared toward budget options. Wouldn’t targeting the top end move the needle faster, since those homes use so much more?
Wouldn’t targeting the top end move the needle faster, since those homes use so much more?
- Just finished building our place last year and ran into the same thing—tons of rebates for basic stuff, but nothing for the nicer fixtures we actually wanted.
- Looked at a few high-end brands with WaterSense labels, but the city’s program only listed the cheapest models. Didn’t make sense, since like you said, bigger homes probably use way more water overall.
- Filling out rebate forms was a pain. Had to submit receipts, photos, serial numbers... almost gave up halfway through.
- Honestly, if they want people to upgrade, streamlining the process and expanding the list would help. Not everyone wants a bargain-bin faucet in a custom home.
- Wonder if it’s just easier for cities to partner with mass-market brands? Or maybe they think luxury homeowners don’t care about rebates. Either way, feels like a missed opportunity.
I’ve wondered the same thing—why do cities focus so much on the entry-level stuff when the big water users are probably in those larger homes? It feels like a weird disconnect. If you’re already spending a ton building or remodeling, you’d think they’d want to nudge you toward the best water-saving tech, not just the cheapest option on the shelf.
Is it just about budget, or maybe they assume people with bigger homes don’t care about saving a few hundred bucks? I mean, if the goal is to reduce overall water use, wouldn’t it make more sense to incentivize the biggest consumers? Or is there some data showing that mass-market rebates actually have a bigger collective impact?
I’ve seen similar issues with energy rebates too—lots of hoops to jump through, and half the time the stuff you want isn’t even on the approved list. Makes me wonder if anyone at the city actually tries to use these programs themselves.
What if your city paid you to use less water?
Makes me wonder if anyone at the city actually tries to use these programs themselves.
That’s a great point. I’ve tried navigating those rebate lists myself, and it’s like a scavenger hunt where half the clues are missing. I do think cities focus on entry-level stuff because it’s easier to roll out at scale—get a lot of people to make small changes, and it adds up. But yeah, targeting the heavy users with smarter incentives could move the needle faster. Maybe there’s a fear of backlash if they’re seen as “penalizing” big homes? Bureaucracy loves the path of least resistance...
TARGETING BIG USERS ISN’T ALWAYS THE ANSWER
I get the logic behind going after heavy users, but sometimes that just creates a bunch of loopholes or resentment. I’ve seen cities try tiered pricing and it just led to people gaming the system or getting mad about “fairness.” Maybe a better approach is making the entry-level stuff way more visible and dead simple—like, one-click signups or automatic rebates. If it feels less like homework, more folks might actually do it.
