They included literature around reducing consumption and the importance of that for sustainability.
Enough residents installed these that it led to a city budget deficit, since water consumption went way down, and they therefore generated less revenue.
Their answer to this? Raise water prices.
I'd say reducing water usage was a good thing even if it lead to higher prices but unless the population of that city is growing it clearly is a waste of potential to have all that infrastructure sit partially idle.
Some that come to mind are garbage collection (our town reduced waste bin sizes) and parking costs.
Raising taxes on citizenry because they're using less resources == bad thing worthy of riots
It would have been nice if the reward for doing so was less cost, since that was one of the big marketing messages of the campaign.
Instead they opted to give us less for more - perhaps that was the intention all along.